Back
2012 Supreme(HP) 492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Surinder Singh, J.
Achhar Kumar Verma - Appellant.
Versus
Shri Kuldeep Chand Lakhanpal – Respondent
RFA No. 14 of 2002. with Cross Objection No. 49 of 2002.
Decided On : 1st November, 2012.
For the appellant :Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. Non-Objector.
For the respondents:Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, with Cross-Objectors. Mr. Dheeraj Vashisth, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to possession and mesne profit under the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987, and the burden of proof regarding the status of a tenant or adopted son.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Possession - H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14 - Summary: The judgment discusses the possession of a disputed property and the entitlement to mesne profit under the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987. The court found the defendant to be in unauthorized occupation of the property and liable to pay mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation. The defendant failed to prove his status as an adopted son and was held to be a rank trespasser. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over possession of a property in Shimla. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for possession and recovery of mesne profit under the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendant to be in unauthorized occupation of the property and liable to pay mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation. The defendant's claim of being the adopted son was not proven, and he was held to be a rank trespasser.
Issues: The main issues included the unauthorized possession of the defendant, entitlement of the plaintiffs to possession and mesne profit, and the maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant failed to prove his status as an adopted son and was in unauthorized occupation of the property. The plaintiffs were entitled to possession and mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial court. The defendant was ordered to pay mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation and to continue paying the same until he handed over possession or was evicted from the property.
Surinder Singh, J.
This judgment shall dispose of the present appeal as well as Cross-Objections filed by the respondents. The appellant has filed the instant appeal feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Suit No.7-S/1 of 1999 decided on 12.10.2001 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for possession qua Flat No.63/2, Lower Bazaar, Shimla, consisting of two rooms, glazed verandah, store, kitchen and a latrine, hereinafter to be referred as “the suit property” as delineated in the red ink in the plan annexed with the plaint was decreed also for the recovery of Rs.1240/- as mesne profit and also future mesne profit calculated @ Rs.40/- per day from the date of passing the judgment till the date of delivery of possession by the defendant-appellant with proportionate costs, against the claim of Rs.6200/- and Rs.200/- per day for future mesne profits till its vacation. The value of the suit property for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction for seeking possession was assessed at Rs.2,50,000/-.
2. In short, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The respondents hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs” had filed a suit against the appellant to be called as “the defendant” as he was before the learned trial Court, on the basis of their title and having been allotted to them on partition between co-owners. Shri Ram Chander Verma was a statutory tenant under the predecessor’s in-interest of the plaintiffs. On 15.6.1981, he died leaving behind his widow Smt. Bhagwanti Devi, who was issueless and had inherited the tenancy rights of the suit property.
(ii) According to the case of the plaintiffs, their predecessor’s in-interest was managing the suit property and had been taking rent against receipts from the tenants. Smt. Bhagwanti Devi was resident of Lalru, District Patiala. The premises remained locked and she failed to occupy the suit property for about 12 years, therefore the electricity connection was got disconnected. Thus, the plaintiffs had filed eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987 in the month of June, 1996 against Smt. Bhagwanti Devi on the grounds of non-payment of rent and having ceased to occupy the premises and also for bonafide requirement. The process was issued. It was reported that she had died on 12.2.1999. It was thereafter, the defendant is alleged to have broke open the locks of the disputed premises and took its illegal possession claiming himself to be the adopted son of the deceased.
(ii) The defendant had also filed a suit against said Kuldeep Chand seeking injunction taking a baseless plea that he was trying to take forcible possession of the suit property, probably to protect his illegal possession and wrongly claimed tenancy rights under Smt. Bhagwanti Devi. Since he was a trespasser having no right, title or interest and was liable to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and to pay damages of Rs.200/-per day w.e.f. 13.2.1999 for unlawful use and occupation of the suit property which is located in the heart of the town, thus claimed a decree for possession as well as recovery of Rs.6200/- as mesne profit till the date from filing the suit and future damages @ Rs.200/- per day, as aforesaid.
3. The defendant offered strong resistance to the suit, filed his written statement and raised preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability of the suit and claimed himself to be the tenant in possession inter-alia took up the points of mis-joinder of necessary parties but admitted Kuldeep Chand as Landlord of the disputed property who was allegedly dealing with Shri Ram Chander Verma and his wife Smt. Bhagwanti Devi including him. He also took up the objection qua valuation and jurisdiction and claimed himself to be a co-tenant with Smt. Bhagwanti Devi. Further averred that the plaintiffs with an intention to make a ground for filing the present sui
