The court upheld the presumption of regularity of official documents, affirming that the burden of proof for tenancy lies with the claimant, which was not met by the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. The suit in the case at hand was filed by the present respondents. The suit filed was for possession of a residential flat bearing No. 7, Block H, Knolls Wood, Chotta Shimla consisting of two bed rooms, one kitchen, one drawing room, lobby-cum-dinning Balcony, one store, one toilet (suit property) and for recovery of use and occupation charges thereof. The respondents in the suit filed claimed that their predecessor-in-interest had been allotted the flat/suit property by the Himachal Pradesh, Housing Board, Urban Development authority in the year 1981. The respondents claimed that they are permanent residents of Punjab. On the other hand, it was averred in the plaint that the present appellant is an employee of the Himachal Pradesh, Housing Board, Urban Development authority and is also an owner of a flat adjoining the suit premises. Taking advantage of the fact that the present respondents do not reside in Himachal, appellant herein is alleged to have occupied the suit premises. The illegal occupation of the flat was noticed on 03.08.2010, when they visited the suit premises and found carpenters working therein. On questioning the carpenters, it was divulged that the present appellant claimed herself to be the owner of the suit property. When the appellant was shown documentary proof with respect to ownership of the respondents qua the suit premises, then the appellant claimed herself to be a tenant inducted by Bal Bushan i.e. brother of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent to whom the flat had been allotted. In the plaint, it is averred that on 7.8.2010, the matter inter-se the parties was amicably settled. Possession was handed over to the present respondents. Thereafter the respondents had locked the premises and left for their native place in Punjab. On 11.08.2010, the neighbours of the respondents had telephonically informed the respondents that the present appellant had re-possessed the flat in question. Thereafter once again, the respondents came to Shimla. Where in after with respect to the illegal possession, a police report was lodged in the concerned police station. At the behest of the police, the matter was compromised. However even thereafter since possession of the flat was not handed over, therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop, a suit seeking the relief of possession, use and occupation charges was filed.

2. Per contra in the written statement filed, the present appellant denied that the suit premises had been inherited by the present respondents. She claimed herself to be a tenant inducted by Bal Bushan. The occurrences as were narrated in the plaint were categorically denied by the plaintiff. Rather to the contrary, the appellant submitted that from the suit premises, the respondents had forcibly tried to evict her by use of force on 03.08.2010. The said use of force was brought to the notice of the concerned police. In order to protect her possession, she had filed a civil suit for injunction against the present respondents.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the following issues were framed on 05.07.2014:-

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the possession of Flat No. 7, Block H, Knolls Wood, Chotta Shimla consisting of two bed rooms, one kitchen, one drawing room, lobby-cum-dinning Balcony, one store, one toilet? …… OPP

2. Whether the defendant is in illegal possession of demised premises? ……. OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the use and occupation charges Rs. 4500/- per month? ...........OPP

4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? ..........OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so, its consequences? ........OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his acts, deeds, conduct etc? ...........OPD

7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? ..........OPD

8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? .