Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Vinod Kumar Son Of vs Sh. Vinod Kumar on 10 August, 2021
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ON THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL REVISION No. 28 OF 2018
Between:-
1. SHRI VINOD KUMAR SON OF
LATE SHRI AMAR NATH SUD,
RESIDENT OF GROUND FLOOR
OF DEV NIWAS, ROCK HOUSE,
CHAURA MAIDAN, SHIMLA, H.P.
2. SMT. POONAM SUD
DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI
AMAR NATH SUD, RESIDENT OF
SET NO. 2, SHOP NO. 3, CHAURA
MAIDAN, SHIMLA, H.P.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SH. DHEERAJ K. VASHSIHT, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI NARESH KUMAR SHARMA SON OF
KEWAL KISHORE, RESIDENT OF SHARMA
GENERAL STORE, SHOP NO. 3, CHAURA
MAIDAN, SHIMLA, H.P.
...RESPONDENT
(BY M/S ANUJ GUPTA AND ROHIT SHARMA, ADVOCATES)
Whether approved for reporting?No
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS
2
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
.
JUDGEMENT
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, praying for setting aside the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. 2, Shimla, District Shimla, in case No. 138-2 of 2015/12, titled as Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar and another, dated 29.06.2017, vide which, the rent petition filed by the present respondent was disposed of in the following terms:-
"As a sequel of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is held liable to be evicted from the demised premises in case he fails to pay the arrears of rent amounting to `1,06,043/- along with cost of this petition within 30 days of this order. The respondent No. 1 is also liable to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground that he has acquired his own accommodation which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. The respondents are also liable to be evicted on the ground that respondent No. 1 has sub let the demised premises to respondent No. 1 without consent of the petitioner. Memo of costs be prepared and file after due completion be consigned to the record room."::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 3
as well as the judgment passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, (exercising powers of Appellate Authority under the H.P. Urban Rent .
Control Act, 1987), in rent appeal No. 39-S/14 of 2017, titled as Sh.
Vinod Kumar and another vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma, dated 27.11.2017, vide which, the order passed by learned Rent Controller was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that Naresh Kumar Sharma (present respondent) filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rent Act' for convenience) against the present petitioners qua premises described as Set No. 2, Shop No. 3, Chaura Maidan, Shimla-04. As per the landlord, the demised premises, which comprised of two rooms, one store, one bathroom, one kitchen and a toilet, was let out to Sh. Vinod Kumar, on monthly rent of `550/- vide agreement dated 06.01.1989. according to the petitioner, said tenant sublet the demised premises to his sister (respondent No. 2 in the rent petition/present petitioner No. 2), who was stated to be married and presently in possession of the demised premises. According to the landlord, the tenant Vinod Kumar had acquired sufficient accommodation for himself in a building known as ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 4 Dev Niwas, Rock House, Chaura Maidan, Shimla, which comprised of one bed room, one room, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen, store, .
toilet and a lobby. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant inter alia on the grounds of arrears of rent, tenant having acquired sufficient accommodation after the commencement of Rent Act and subletting of the tenancy to Smt. Punam Sud.
3. The rent petition was resisted by the tenant inter alia on the ground that the petition stood filed by the landlord only with the motive of pressurizing the tenant to enhance the rent. The petition was also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it was also pleaded that the premises were not sublet by Vinod Kumar as alleged.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
"(1) Whether the respondent No. 1is in arrears of rent w.e.f.
January @ `550/- along with MC tax, as alleged?...OPP (2) Whether the respondent No. 1after commencement of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act has acquired his own accommodation/residence within the limits of M.C. Shimla, which is sufficient for his need/requirement, as alleged?....OPP ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 5 (3) Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to respondent N. 2 without the written consent of .
petitioner/landlord, as alleged. ...OPP (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged?
....OPR (5) Whether the petitioner is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties, as allege?.... OPR (6) Whether the petitioner has suppressed the true and material facts from the court, as alleged?..... OPR (7) Whether the petitioner is stopped from filing the present petition and it is not in accordance with the provision of H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, as alleged?.....OPR (8) Relief."
5. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed stood decided by the Rent Controller by inter alia holding that respondent No. 1 in the rent petition was liable to be vacated from the demised premises as he had failed to pay the arrears of rent amounting to `1,06.043/- and the same be paid to the landlord within 30 days from the date of order passed by learned Rent Controller and further on the ground that respondent No. 1 therein had acquired his own accommodation, which ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 6 stood proved from Ext. PW4/C and said fact was not even disputed by respondent No. 1 Vinod Kumar in his cross examination. Learned .
Rent Controller also held that Vinod Kumar in his cross examination had admitted that his brother Brijesh Sud had constructed his own building in Combley bank known as Amar Kunj, which was a four storeyed building. It also held that as it stood proved that Vinod Kumar had acquired his own accommodation and was residing therein, therefore, it stood proved that the property had been sublet by him in favour of Smt. Punam Sud. On the issue of the petition being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, learned Rent Controller held that the contention of the tenant that the petition was bad for non-
joinder of Shri Brijesh Sud as a party respondent therein, on the ground that he was also a co-tenant was not worth any merit for the reason that in a previous litigation under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act between the previous owner of the same demised premises, which stood initiated against Vinod Kumar and Brijesh Sud on the ground that they were the tenants of the demised premises, the stand which was taken by Vinod Kumar and Brijesh Sud in the reply filed to the rent petition was that it was only Vinod Kumar, who was the tenant in ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 7 the demised premises. On the basis of said findings, the rent petition stood allowed by the Rent Controller.
.
6. In appeal, these findings have been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants have filed the present petition.
8. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority were not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the findings which stand returned by the learned Courts below on the issue of non-
joinder of necessary parties were perverse findings. Learned Counsel submitted that there was enough evidence on record to demonstrate that the landlord had inducted Shri Brijesh Sud as tenant of the demised premises, however, said evidence on record was brushed aside by the Rent Controller while deciding Issue No. 5 against tenant, which findings wrongly stood upheld by learned Appellate Authority.
He has drawn the attention of the Court to Ext. Rx, and on the strength of the same, he has submitted that this communication, which stood addressed by landlord Naresh Kumar to Brijesh Sud, clearly was an ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 8 admission on the part of the landlord that Brijesh Sud was also the tenant qua the demised premises. However, this Exhibit was not .
appreciated in its correct perspective by the learned Rent Controller.
Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside. No other ground was urged.
9. Opposing the petition, Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent/landlord has drawn the attention of the Court to the findings returned in paras-25 and 26 of the order passed by learned Rent Controller and on the strength of the same, he has argued that Issue No. 5 was correctly decided by learned Rent Controller after appreciating the documents on record, which included Ext. PW5/A also, alongwith affidavits Ext. PW5/B and Ext. PW5/C. He submitted that Issue No. 5 was decided by learned Rent Controller by assigning reasons which are borne out from the record and the learned Appellate Authority also upheld these findings by assigning reasons, which again are clearly borne out from the record as is also evident from para-23 onwards of the learned Appellate Authority's judgment.
Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 910. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the order passed by learned Rent Controller and the judgment .
passed by the learned Appellate Authority as well as record of the case.
11. While deciding Issue No. 5, learned Rent Controller held that to prove that the rent petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, tenant had placed on record letter Ext. RX sent by the landlord to Brijesh Sud, vide which, the landlord had called upon Shri Brijesh Sud to pay the rent to him as he had purchased the entire building known as Shop No 3, Chaura Maidan, through sale deed dated 25.09.2004. Learned Rent Controller held that though Brijesh Sud was stated to be a tenant therein, but Vinod Kumar had admitted in his cross examination that in a previous litigation under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, he alongwith Brijesh Sud had filed reply Ext. PW5/A to the rent petition, alongwith affidavits Ext.
PW5/B and Ext. PW5/C, in which, the unequivocal stand taken by the brothers was that it was Vinod Kumar who was the tenant and not Brijesh Sud.
12. This rent petition was filed by Shri K.K.Sood, the original owner of the demised premises, against Brijesh Sud and ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 10 Vinod Kumar. Perusal of the record demonstrates that said findings returned by the learned Rent Controller are duly borne out from the .
Exhibits in issue. In fact, in Case No. 51/2 of 2001, there were two respondents, i.e. Brijesh Kumar Sood and Vinod Kumar. In paras 5 and 16 of the reply, it was stated that Vinod Kumar was the tenant in the premises.
13. Similarly even learned Appellate Authority has in detail discussed the evidence on record, as is evident from para 23 onwards of the said judgment and has concurred with the findings returned by learned Rent Controller that the rent petition was not bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties by passing a reasoned judgment.
14. Besides this, the record also demonstrates that an application was filed before learned Rent Controller by the petitioners herein for impleadment of Shri Brijesh Sud as party in the present rent petition, which stood rejected by the learned Rent Controller and the findings so returned by the learned Rent Controller were upheld up to this Court.
In this view of the matter, as this Court does not finds any perversity with the findings returned by learned Rent Controller qua Issue No. 5, which findings have been upheld by the learned ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS 11 Appellate Authority, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Interim order(s), if any, stand vacated. No orders as to costs. Pending .
miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
August 10, 2021 Judge
(narender)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:25 :::CIS