Point of Law: Eviction of tenant – Bonafide requirement of landlord - filing of the application at the stage when respondents had already availed four opportunities to lead evidence, demonstrated that the same was filed by the applicant with the intent to delay the adjudication of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:­

“ It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be accepted and impugned Order dated 07.09.2020 passed by learned Rent Controller Shimla in Rent Petition No.147/2 of 2014 may be ordered to be set aside and consequently application being CNR No.HPSH 120023882019 (Registration No.1217/2019 under Order 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be dismissed and application being CNR No. HPSH 12003491208 (Registration No.9004891/2018) under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be allowed with costs throughout.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:­

The contesting respondent, Sanjay Kumar Sharma has filed an eviction petition on 20.11.2014, seeking eviction of one Shri Sanjay Kumar, son of Shri Jagan Nath (since dead) from shop No.112, situated on ground floor, Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of personal use and occupation to open a retail shop. The eviction petition was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the same was bad for non­joinder of necessary parties and that the premises were tenanted to Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath, 6, Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. as the landlord of the premises Shri Devinder Prakash had inducted said proprietorship concern as tenant. Respondent Sanjay Kumar took the stand that the tenanted premises was rented out to M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath, which firm was running a gym from the demised premises.

3. In the rejoinder, petitioner/landlord reasserted that it was respondent Sanjay Kumar who was running a local style gym in the rented premises, whereas the firm M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath was doing wholesale business of vegetable and fruits in another building of one Shri Sanjay Bhagra and as per the record of Municipal Corporation, it was Sanjay Kumar who was recorded as tenant of the demised premises, whereas proprietor of the firm M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath was Ashok Sharma. It was further the contention of the landlord that he had suffered an eviction order qua shop No.115/1 in Sabji Mandi, Shimla, H.P. and therefore, the demised premises were bonafidely required by him for his personal use to set up his business.

4. The issues in the matter stood framed on 29.11.2016, in which one of the issues framed is that whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties or not with onus upon the respondent. The evidence of the landlord was concluded on 24.07.2018. Thereafter, the case was listed for recording the evidence of the respondents on 30.08.2018, when respondents moved an application under Order 8, Rule 1­A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record certain statements of account. On 07.12.2018, present petitioners filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as respondents in the case on the ground that the demised premises were rented out by one Shri Devinder Prakash in the year 1995 to M/s Kirpa Ram Jagan Nath through its proprietor and as initially the father of the present petitioners as well as respondent Sanjay Kumar, namely, Shri Jagan Nath was the proprietor of the said concern, therefore, after his death the proprietorship concern was being continued by all his sons including one Shri Ashok Sharma, who was dead. According to the present petitioners, the eviction petition was filed by the landlord in­connivance with Sanjay Kumar and they were not aware about the pendency of the eviction petition, but as soon as they came to know of the same in the first week of December, 2018, they filed the application for being impleading them as party respondents. The application was contested by the landlord, inter alia, on the ground that the filing of the application was abuse of the process of law and was filed by the applicants in-c