Hari Singh v. Devender Pratap, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revision No. 8 of 2016

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

For revisionist: Mr. G.R Palsra, Advocate
For non-revisionist: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate.

Judges

P.S Rana, J.

Acts

Section 24(5) of H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987
section 14 of HP Urban Rent Control Act
provisions of Amended Act t 200 9
Rent Control (Amendment) Act 2009
H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987.
section 58 of Indian Evidence Act H 1872.
provision of H.P Urban Rent Contr u ol (Amendment) Act 2009
HP Urban Rent Control Act 198 r 7

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The present civil revision petition arises from an eviction dispute under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The landlord, Devender Partap, filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act, alleging that the premises, let out to the tenant Hari Singh since 1995, were non-residential and required by the landlord for bonafide personal use. The landlord sought eviction to start a hosiery business and to settle his son in the business, claiming no other shop was available to him.

The tenant contested the eviction, asserting the premises was rented since 1989 and that the landlord had two other shops in the same building. The tenant also claimed the landlord's son was employed and earning a good salary, and that the eviction petition was filed to harass the tenant.

The Rent Controller decided in favor of the landlord, ordering eviction and possession to be handed over within two months from 28.12.2013. The tenant appealed, but the Appellate Authority affirmed the eviction order on 28.11.2015. Aggrieved, the tenant filed the present revision petition before the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the revision petition filed by the tenant is liable to be accepted as per the grounds stated in the memorandum of revision petition?
What relief, if any, is entitled to the parties?

Arguments of the Parties

Landlord's Arguments

The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the premises for starting a hosiery business and settling his son therein.
The landlord retired voluntarily and arranged Rs. 400,000 for the business purpose.
Other shops in the premises were rented out, and the landlord resided on the upper floor.
The landlord's son was unemployed or working temporarily but intended to be settled in the business.
The landlord issued proper notice to the tenant and complied with procedural requirements.

Tenant's Arguments

The tenant contended the eviction petition was filed to harass and that the premises was rented since 1989.
The tenant argued that the landlord had two other shops and that the son of the landlord was a trained pharmacist employed with a good salary.
The tenant denied the bonafide personal requirement of the landlord.
The tenant challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the personal requirement for eviction in non-residential premises was introduced only by amendment in 2012, after the petition was filed in 2011.
The tenant asserted the landlord did not file eviction petitions against other co-tenants, alleging non-joinder.
The tenant sought stay of execution proceedings, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
2013 (5) SCC 243 - Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikash Sood and others	Application of amended provisions of HP Urban Rent Control Act 2009 to pending cases	The Court applied the amended Act's provisions retrospectively to the pending eviction petition.
2001 (2) SCC 355 - M.L. Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singal	Recognition of bonafide personal requirement of landlord including family members	Supported the Court's finding that the landlord's personal requirement was genuine.
2001 (8) SCC 561 - Siddalingamma and another Vs. Mamtha P. Shenoy	Bonafide personal requirement for eviction in commercial premises	Reinforced the landlord's right to evict on personal requirement grounds.
1999 (6) SCC 222 - Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta	Landlord's personal requirement as a valid ground for eviction	Supported the Court's conclusion that personal requirement was bonafide.
2002 (5) SCC 397 - Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal	Landlord as best judge of his accommodation needs and non-joinder of co-owners not fatal	The Court held that the landlord's subjective need is paramount and non-joinder of co-owners was not fatal.
2003 (1) SCC 462 - Akhileshwar Kumar and others Vs. Mustaqim and others	Landlord's choice of accommodation and eviction rights	Supported the principle of landlord's discretion in eviction matters.
2002 (8) SCC 765 - Savitri Vs. Sachidanand	Landlord's right to evict on bonafide grounds	Reinforced the landlord's entitlement to eviction.
2003 (4) SCC 549 - Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and another	Landlord's bonafide requirement and eviction	Supported the Court's reasoning on bonafide requirement.
2005 (5) SCC 375 - Kailash Chand and others Vs. Dharam Dass	Landlord's right to evict on personal requirement	Confirmed landlord's right on bonafide grounds.
AIR 1991 SC 455 - Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed	High Court's limited scope in revising findings unless perverse	The Court applied the principle that findings of fact should not be disturbed unless perverse.
AIR 1995 SC 1357 - P. Udayani Devi Vs. V.V. Rajeshwara Prasad Rao and another	High Court's role in revision petitions	Supported the Court's approach in refusing to interfere with findings of fact.
2002 SC 1004 - Gurdial Singh and others Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and others	Principle of judicial restraint in revision petitions	Reinforced the Court's limited interference in revision petitions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the pleadings, affidavits, and documentary evidence. It noted that the landlord had voluntarily retired and intended to start a hosiery business to settle his son, which constituted a bonafide personal requirement. The Court observed that the landlord resided on the upper floor and had rented out other shops, and that the tenant had assured to vacate the premises within five years but failed to do so.

The Court addressed the tenant's contention regarding the retrospective application of the amended Act, holding that the amendment of 2009 (effective 2012) allowing eviction on personal requirement grounds in commercial premises applied to pending cases, following the Supreme Court's decision in Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikash Sood.

The tenant's allegation of concealment of facts was rejected due to lack of positive evidence, and the Court dismissed the argument that the landlord's pension and son's employment negated bonafide requirement, citing settled law that personal requirement includes family members and that tenants cannot dictate terms to landlords.

Regarding non-joinder of the landlord's brother, a joint co-owner, the Court held that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and that non-joinder was not fatal to the eviction petition.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the tenant's application for stay of execution proceedings, noting the tenant's prolonged delay and withdrawal of the revision petition.

Applying established precedents, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and thus declined to interfere.

Holding and Implications

The Court dismissed the revision petition, thereby upholding the eviction order against the tenant as passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The direct effect of this decision is that the tenant is required to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the landlord. No new precedent was established; the Court applied existing legal principles and precedents to the facts of the case.

Show full summary ...

Hari Singh v. Devender Pratap

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHIMLA: .

Civil Revision No. 8 of 2016.

Order reserved on: 4.8.2016. .

Date of Order: October 26, 2016.

Hari Singh son of Munshi Ram. ..Rev o isionis f t/Tenant. Vs:

Sh. Devender Pratap son of Kara r m S t ing h. …Non-revisionist/Landlord. Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P u .S.Rana, Judge.

Whether approved fo o r Reporting?¹yes. For revisio nis C t: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For n h on-revisionist: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vinod Thakur, Advocate. g i

P.S.Rana, Judge. H

ORDER: Present civil revision petition is filed under Section 24(5) of H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against the order passed by learned Rent Controller and affirmed by learned Appellate Authority whereby learned Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant and directed the tenant

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes.

to hand over and deliver the vacant possession of demised .

premises to landlord within a period of two months w.e.f.

28.12.2013. .P

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Devender Partap landlord filed evicti on H petition under section 14 of HP Urban Rent Control Act f 1987 pleaded therein that premises is non-residential a o nd monthly rent of the premises is Rs.1800/- (One r tho t usa nd eight hundred) per month. It is pleaded that premises was constructed in the year 1990. It is further u pleaded that electricity and water

facilities provided in o the premises. It is further pleaded that premises is C situated in ward No.5 Municipal Council, Sundernag ar District Mandi HP. It is further pleaded that prem h ises was let out to tenant in the year 1995. It is further g pleaded that landlord sought voluntarily retirement for i

starting his own business of hosiery and also to settle his H

son Bikram Pratap Singh in the business. It is further pleaded that there is no other shop available to landlord. Prayer for acceptance of eviction petition sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of tenant pleaded therein that present petition is filed just to harass

the tenant. It is further pleaded that premises was

constructed prior to 1990. It is further pleaded that premises .

is in possession of the tenant since 1989. It is further pleaded that landlord has two other shops in the sam . e P

building. It is further pleaded that son of landlord is a trained Pharmacist and he is serving in a repute d H concern and is getting handsome salary. It is pleaded th f at brothers of landlord is also joint co-owner of pr o emises. Prayer for dismissal of eviction petition sou r ght t . 4. As per pleadings of parties learned Rent Controller framed followin u g issues on dated 12.10.2011.

1. Whet o her premises is required by landlord for his bonafide personal use as alleged?. C ...OPP. 2. Whether landlord is entitled for eviction of h

tenant from premises as claimed?. g

...OPP. i

3. Whether petition is not maintainable? ...OPR. 4. Relief.

5. Learned Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative and decided issue No.3 in negative. Learned Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenant on dated 28.12.2013.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the eviction order tenant filed appeal before learned Appellate Authority Mandi

camp at Sundernagar and learned Appellate Authority .

affirmed the order of learned Rent Controller and dismisse . d the appeal on dated 28.11.2015. P

7. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller and learned Ist Appellate Autho rity H tenant filed present revision petition. f

8. Court heard learned Ad vo o cate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned t Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and r also perused entire records

carefully. u

9. Followin o g points arise for determination in present revisi C on petition: (1) Whether revision petition filed by tenant is h

is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?. g

(2) Relief. i

10. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. H

10.1 AW1 Devender Partap landlord has filed affidavit Ext AW1/A in examination in chief. There is recital in affidavit that AW1 was posted as Superintendent in H.P. University Shimla and sought voluntarily retirement to start his business of hosiery. There is recital in affidavit that son

of AW1 is unemployed and presently he is working at Baddi

and AW1 also wants to settle his son in his business. There .

is further recital in affidavit that AW1 required the premises bonafidely. There is further recital in affidavit that other tw . o P

shops have been rented. One shop rented to Kam al H Kishore in the year 2003 and second shop was rented to M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 2000. There is recit f al in affidavit

that tenant is running sweet shop. There o is further recital in

affidavit that tenant in the year r 199 t 5 assured that he would vacate the shop within five years. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 has ar u ranged Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for

business purpose. I o n cross-examination AW1 has admitted that premise C s is c mprised of two stories and AW1 has admitted th at 5/6 rooms are situated in the ground floor and 5/6 r h ooms are situated in the upper floor. AW1 has admitted g that he is residing in the upper floor of the premises. AW1 i

has admitted that he did not file any eviction petition against H

other tenants. AW1 has admitted that his son is serving at Baddi. 10.2. AW2 Karan Shamsher Singh also filed affidavit Ext AW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in the affidavit that AW2 has seen premises which is rented out by

Devender Partap AW1 to Hari Singh tenant. There is further

recital in affidavit that AW1 was posted as Superintendent in .

H.P. University Shimla and sought voluntarily retirement to start his business of hosiery. There is further recital i . n P

affidavit that son of AW1 Vikram Partap Singh is unemployed and is working as temporary worker at Baddi an H d AW1 intends to settle his son in business. There is f further recital in affidavit that AW1 bonafide require o d the premises in dispute. There is further recital in t af fidavit that other two shops have been rented to diff r erent tenants namely Kamal Kishore and M/s Laxmi M u edical store in the year 2003 and 2000. There is further recital in affidavit that in the premises in dispute te C nant ios running sweet shop. There is further recital in affidavit that in the month of September 2010 tenan h t was requested by AW1 to evict the premises. There is g further recital in affidavit that premises was rented out in the i

year 1995 and tenant has assured that he would vacate the H

premises within five years. There is further recital in affidavit that AW1 has arranged sum of Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for business purpose. AW2 has admitted in cross examination that AW1 is his class fellow. AW2 has admitted that son of AW1 is working at Baddi. AW2 has denied suggestion that

AW1 is not in position to run business. He has denied

suggestion that salary of the son of AW1 is rupees forty to .

fifty thousand per month.

10.3. AW3 Jitender Thakur has filed affidavit Ex . t P

AW3/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that premises was rented out by AW1 to ten f an t. H There is further recital in affidavit that AW o 1 was posted as Superintendent in H.P.University Shimla and sought voluntarily retirement to start r bus t ines s of hosiery. There is further recital in affidavit that son of AW1 is unemployed and working as temporary w u orker at Baddi. There is further

recital in affidavit o that AW1 wants to settle his son in business and C bonafidely required premises. There is further recital in a ffidavit that two other shops were rented to Kamal Kish h ore and M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 2003 and g 2000. There is further recital in affidavit that in the month of i

September 2010 AW1 requested tenant to vacate the H

premises but tenant declined. There is further recital in affidavit that premises was rented out in the year 1995 and tenant has assured that he would vacate the premises within five years. There is further recital in affidavit that landlord has arranged a sum of Rs.400000/- (Four lacs) for business

purpose. In cross examination AW3 Jitender Thakur has

admitted that AW1 is his relative. AW3 has admitted that .

premises is comprised of two stories. AW3 has admitted that in the ground floor shops have been rented out and in th . e P

upper floor AW1 is residing with his family mem be H rs. AW3 has admitted that son of AW1 has qualified B-Pharmacy course and is posted in private company. AW f 3 has denied

suggestion that AW1 intends to give pr em o ises to other tenant in order to receive enhanced rent. t

10.4. AW4 P.S.Sen Advoc r ate has stated that notice Ext AW4/A was sent at the u instance of landlord to tenant through registered post. He has stated that postal receipt is Ext AW4/B a C nd ackonowledgment receipt is Ext AW4/C and reply is Ext AW4/D.

10.5 h RW1 Hari Singh tenant has filed affidavit Ext g RW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit i

that RW1 is tenant of shop premises. There is recital in H

affidavit that premises was rented out in the year 1989 for commercial purpose of running a sweet shop. There is further recital in affidavit that rent of the shop was fixed at Rs.600/- (Six hundred) per month in the year 1989 but with the passage of time rent rate was enhanced from time to time

in four times and now the monthly rent of the premises is

Rs.1800/- (One thousand eight hundred) per month. There .

is further recital in affidavit that tenant is paying rent regularly to landlord. There is further recital in affidavit tha . t P

landlord has two other additional shops in the same building adjoining to the shop of tenant which have been ren H ted out to two different tenants. There is further recit f al in affidavit that one shop was rented out to M/s Lax o mi Medical Store in the year 1995 and another shop t was rented out to Kamal Kishore in the year 2007 for ru r nning general store. There is further recital in affidavit u that Kamal Kishore expired in the month of November 2011 and after his death his shop rented out to his so C n Sonuo through fresh agreement of tenancy for running bu siness of general store. There is further recital in affida h vit that landlord has retired from government service in g the year 2002 and now landlord is getting handsome pension i

from State government. There is further recital in affidavit H

that son of landlord is trained B Pharmacist and is employed in a reputed company at Baddi and is getting handsome salary. There is further recital in affidavit that premises is not required bonafidely by landlord. There is further recital in affidavit that present petition is filed just to harass the

tenant in illegal manner. In cross examination tenant has

denied suggestion that premises was given on rent for five .

years. Tenant has admitted that he received notice from landlord and he also filed response. Tenant has denie . d P

suggestion that landlord is in urgent bonafide need of premises. Tenant has denied suggestion that he ha s H not paid bills of water and electricity charges. f

10.6 RW2 Narain Singh has file d o affidavit Ext RW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is f t urther recital in affidavit that parties are known to RW2 r . There is further recital in

affidavit that Hari Singh u is the tenant of shop premises.

There is further rec o ital in affidavit that shop was rented out in the year 19 C 89 for commercial purpose for running a sweet shop. Ther e is further recital in affidavit that rent of shop was h Rs.600/- (Six hundred) per month in the year 1989 and g thereafter with the passage of time rent rate was enhanced i

from time to time in four times and now as of today the H

monthly rent of shop is Rs.1800/- (One thousand eight hundred). There is further recital in affidavit that landlord is also owner of other two shops in the same building adjoining to the shop of tenant which have been rented out to two other tenants namely Kamal Kishore and M/s Laxmi Medical

Store. There is further recital in affidavit that one shop was

rented out to Kamal Kishore in the year 2007 and another .

shop was rented out to M/s Laxmi Medical Store in the year 1995. There is further recital in affidavit that Kamal Kishor . e P

died in the month of November 2011 and after th e H death of Kamal Kishore the shop was rented out to his son through fresh agreement of tenancy for running busin f ess of general

store. There is further recital in affid avi o t that landlord has retired from government service r in t t he year 2002 and now he is getting handsome pension from State government. There is further recital in affidavit u that wife of landlord is also retired

as C.H.T from gove o rnment service and she is also getting handsome pe C nsion from government. There is further recital in affidavit that son of landlord is trained B Pharmacist and is em h ployed in reputed company at Baddi and is getting g handsome salary. In cross examination RW2 Narain Singh i

has denied suggestion that premises was given for five years H

only. RW2 has admitted that son of landlord has qualified B Pharmacist course and he is working at Baddi. He has denied suggestion that no shop of landlord remained vacant at any point of time.

11. Following documentaries evidence filed by parties. (1) Ext AW4/A is legal notice given by landlord

Devender Partap to tenant Hari Singh. (2) Ext AW4/B is .

postal receipt. (3) Ext AW4/C is postal acknowledgement. (4) Ext AW4/D is reply to notice given by tenant. .P

12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that when eviction petition wa s H filed by landlord in the year 2011 at that time ground f for eviction of tenant from non-residential premises on o ground of personal requirement was not available to lan t dlo rd and amendment in HP Urban Rent Control Act 198 r 7 came into effect in the year 2012 and on this groun u d revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It C is truoe that in the original act there was no ground for eviction of tenant on the ground of personal requ h irement relating to non-residential premises. H.P Urban g Rent Control (Amendment) Act 2009 was assented by i

President of India on 28.2.2012 and was published in H.P H

Rajpatra on 16.3.2012 and ground for eviction of tenant for personal requirement of landlord was also added in commercial premises. It is well settled law that when legislator enacts statute it creates rights and obligations and its operation is always prospective unless expressly its

operation is made retrospective in operation. It is also well

settled law that when Apex Court gives decision then Apex .

Court always declares pre-existing rights and obligations of parties. It is also well settled law that judicial decision o . f P

Apex Court qua case of similar nature is operative upon pending cases as per Article 141 of Constitution o f I H ndia. In case reported in 2013 (5) SCC 243 title Hari f Dass Sharma Vs. Vikash Sood and others Hon'ble A o pex Court of India applied provisions of Amended Act t 200 9 upon pending cases also. It is held that in view of c r ase law cited supra provision of H.P Urban Rent Contr u ol (Amendment) Act 2009 will also apply to pending cases under H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987. o

13. S C ubmission of learned Advocate appearing on beha h lf of tenant that landlord has not filed present eviction g petition with clean hands and concealed true facts from i

Court and on this ground revision petition be allowed is H

rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Tenant did not adduce any positive evidence on record that landlord has concealed true facts from court. Plea of tenant is rejected on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof).

14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on .

behalf of tenant that landlord retired in the year 2002 whereas present eviction petition was filed by landlord o . n P

29.4.2011 after gap of long period and this revision petition be allowed on this ground is rejected being dev oid H of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Groun f d for eviction of tenant for bonafide personal use in co o mmercial premises accrued to landlord after ame r ndm t ent in H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987 w.e.f. 16.3.2012 vide Act No.8 of 2012. It is held that it is not expedi u ent in the ends of justice to allow

revision petition on t o his ground. 15. S C ubmission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that landlord and his wife are getting hand h some pension and their son is serving in reputed g company at Baddi and on this ground revision petition be i

allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons H

hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that personal requirement of landlord includes requirement of family members also. It is well settled law that tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord. In the present case it is proved on record that landlord has sought voluntarily retirement for

running business in the premises. It is held that personal

requirement of landlord is bonafide and genuine. See 2001 .

(2) SCC 355 title M.L.Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singal. See 2001

(8) SCC 561 title Siddalingamma and another Vs. Mamth . a P

Shenoy. See 1999 (6) SCC 222 title Shiv Sarup Gu pta H Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta. See 2002 (5) SCC 397 title Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal. f

16. Submission of learned A dvo o cate appearing on behalf of tenant that there are t other tenants also and landlord did not file any evicti r on petition against other co-

tenants and petition is b u ad for non-joinder of co-tenant is

also rejected being d o evoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. C It is well settled law that choice of accommod ation should be left to subjective choice of landl h ord only. It is well settled law that landlord is best judge g of his need. See 2003 (1) SCC 462 title Akhileshwar Kumar i

and others Vs. Mustaqim and others. See 2002 (8) SCC 765 H

title Savitri Vs. Sachidanand. See 2002 (5) SCC 397 title Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal. See 2003 (4) SCC 549 title Dwarkaprasad Vs. Niranjan and another. See 2005 (5) SCC 375 Kailash Chand and others Vs. Dharam Dass.

17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of tenant that learned Rent Controller dismissed

application of tenant filed under order XXI rule 26 CPC for .

stay of execution proceedings in execution petition and on this ground revision petition be allowed is also rejected bein . g P

devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Landlord filed execution petition and in executio n H petition tenant filed application under Order XXI Rul f e 26 CPC for stay of execution proceedings. Learned o Advocates of both parties admitted before learned Exe t cu ting Court that appeal filed by tenant against eviction r order dismissed on 2.1.2016 by learned Appellate Au u thority. Learned Executing Court held that execution petition is pending before court since 19.5.2015 an C d evicotion order was passed by learned Rent Controller on 28.12.2013. Learned executing court held that there h after tenant filed revision petition before High Court of g HP and which remained pending before Hon'ble High Court i

of HP almost for two years and thereafter revision petition H

was withdrawn from High Court of HP by tenant on 8.5.2015 and thereafter appeal was filed before learned First Appellate Authority in the year 2015 by tenant and said appeal was dismissed. Learned executing court held that there would be no purpose for delaying the execution proceedings. No stay

order of execution proceedings produced before executing

court on dated 6.1.2016. It is well settled law that in revision .

petition High Court should not reverse findings unless findings are perverse. See AIR 1991 SC 455 title Masji . d Pp>

Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 title P.Udayani Devi Vs. V.V.Rajeshwara P ra H sad Rao and another. See 2002 SC 1004 title Gurdi f al Singh and others Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and others. o

18. Submission of learned t A dvocate appearing on behalf of tenant that brother r of landlord is also joint co- owner of demised premi u ses and on this ground revision petition be allowed o is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons here C inafter mentioned. Tenant in reply admitted tenancy of landlord in premises at the rate of Rs.1800/- (One thou h sand eight hundred). Landlord did not seek any relief g against his brother in eviction petition. Facts admitted need i

not to be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act H

1872. It is held that brother of landlord is not necessary party in eviction petition. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra it is held that order of learned Rent Controller and order of learned First Appellate Court are not perverse and are not illegal. In view of above stated facts

point No.1 is answered in negative.

Point No.2 (Relief). P

19. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. File of learned Rent Controller and f le arn H ed First Appellate Authority along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are left to bea o r their own costs.

Revision petition is disposed of. Pen t din g application(s) if any

also disposed of.

ur (P.S.Rana), Judge.

October 26, 2016(R)

h ig H

o t ur

h ig

Hari Singh v. Devender Pratap

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Landlord's Arguments

Tenant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Hari Singh v. Devender Pratap

Comments