Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Rajinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Madan & others - Respondents
Civil Revision No.102 of 2022
Decided on : 02-05-2025
(A) H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14 - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 47 and Order 14 Rules 1 and 2 - Eviction proceedings - The landlord sought eviction on grounds of unfit premises and bona fide requirement for reconstruction - The tenant's heirs claimed inheritance of tenancy rights - The court held that eviction against one joint tenant is binding on all - The execution order was set aside for lack of useful directions regarding re-entry rights. (Paras 1 , 4 , 30 , 41 )
(B) Tenancy Rights - Inheritance - Upon the death of a tenant, all legal heirs inherit tenancy rights as joint tenants, and eviction against one is effective against all. (Paras 29 , 30 )
Facts of the case:
The landlord filed for eviction against the widow of the deceased tenant, claiming the premises were unfit and required for reconstruction. The widow contested, asserting that her sons also inherited tenancy rights. The eviction order was upheld despite the sons not being parties to the original proceedings. (Paras 2 , 4 , 21 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the landlord's eviction order was binding on all heirs, and the execution petition was flawed due to lack of clarity on re-entry rights. (Paras 30 , 41 )
Issues: The main issues included the inheritance of tenancy rights by the deceased tenant's sons and the validity of the eviction order against them. (Paras 28 , 30 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that all legal heirs inherit tenancy rights jointly, and eviction against one is effective against all, emphasizing the need for clarity in execution orders regarding re-entry rights. (Paras 29 , 30 )
Result: The impugned order was set aside and remanded for fresh directions. (Para 41 )
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The instant petition has been filed against order dated 09.06.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla, in Case No. CIS 4 of 2022, whereby the objections of the petitioner herein under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) along with application under Order 14 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code have been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under:
(i) Respondent No.1 Rajesh Madan is the landlord in respect of residential premises known as House No. 82/3 Top Floor, Ganj Road, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the premises”). The premises was under the tenancy of Gian Singh even before the purchase of premises by the landlord.
(ii) Gian Singh died and was survived by his wife Balwant Kaur, Sons Rajinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Joginder Singh (now deceased).
(iii) After death of Gian Singh, the landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) for eviction from the premises against Balwant Kaur on the grounds firstly, that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and secondly, the landlord required the premises bonafide for the purposes of rebuilding and reconstruction which could not be done without vacation of the premises.
(iv) Smt. Balwant Kaur contested the petition by denying the averments made therein. She raised a specific plea that the sons of late Shri Gian Singh had also inherited the tenancy rights in the premises along with her as they were ordinarily residing with Shri Gian Singh in the premises at the time of his death.
3. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the suit premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as alleged? OPA
2. Whether bonafide applicant suit the required for premises is by the building, rebuilding and construction work as claimed? OPA
3. Whether the application is not maintainable as alleged? OPR
4. Whether the applicant is estopped from filing the petition alleged? OPR
5. Relief.”
4. Only issue No.2 was answered in affirmative and the petition was allowed on the ground that the landlord required the premises bonafide for the purposes of rebuilding and reconstruction, which was not possible without vacation of premises.
5. Smt. Balwant Kaur assailed the order of eviction dated 02.07.2009 by filing an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, Shimla, which came to be registered as Rent Appeal No.47-S/14 of 2009. Smt. Balwant Kaur died during the pendency of appeal. The factum of death of Smt. Balwant Kaur was not brought to the notice of learned Appellate Authority and accordingly Rent Appeal No.47-S/14 of 2009 came to be decided vide judgment dated 24.02.2010. The appeal was dismissed and order passed by learned Rent Controller was affirmed.
6. The landlord preferred execution petition for the execution of order dated 02.07.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No.25-2 of 2006. He impleaded Balwant Kaur (deceased) through her sons Joginder Singh, Rajinder Singh and Gurbachan Singh as respondents. The execution petition was registered as Execution Petition No.31-10 of 2010.
7. One of the sons of late Shri Gian Singh named Rajinder Singh (petitioner herein) filed objections under Section 47 of the Code. The objections were dismissed. The order of dismissal of objections passed by the executing Court was assailed by Rajinder Singh by filing Civil Revision No.4066 of 2013 in this Court.
8. Rajinder Singh filed another Civil Revision Petition being CR No.26 of 2014 in this Court assailing judgment dated 24.02.2010, passed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla in Rent Appeal No.47-S/14 of 2009.
9. Civil Revision No.26 of 2014 was decided by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 04.04.2018. The judgment dated 24.02.2010 passed by Appellate Authority was set aside having been passed against a dead person. Rajinder Singh was granted liberty to move appropriate application be
All legal heirs of a deceased tenant inherit tenancy rights as joint tenants, making eviction against one binding on all.
The right to re-entry for tenants post-eviction is contingent upon mutual agreement and completion of rebuilding, not an absolute right.
The substantive right conferred by Section 14(3)(c) of the Act has prospective effect only from the date the amendment was incorporated in the statute.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
The High Court holds that a landlord's need for property repairs overrides the tenant's claims, reaffirming limited revisional jurisdiction.
The appellate court must provide detailed reasoning for its decisions, reflecting a conscious application of mind to all issues, while the revisional jurisdiction does not allow for a re-hearing of f....
Tenancy rights under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act do not devolve to heirs unless specified, resulting in the eviction of non-applicants who claimed tenancy rights after the death of th....
The court affirmed the eviction of tenants based on the landlord's bona fide requirement for reconstruction of a dilapidated building, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The heritable rights of the statutory tenant are governed by the provisions of Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the rights in the tenanted property can only flow in favor of heirs as p....
The court established that tenancy rights under the 1956 Act were not extinguished by the 1997 Act, emphasizing the necessity of clear admissions for eviction under CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
