Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
Dharam Prakash Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Baba Jang Bahadur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner/tenant has filed this Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as “the Rent Act”) against the judgment dated 19.5.2014 passed by Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 24-S/13b of 2013/12, titled as Bawa Jang Bahadur Vs. D.P. Bhardwaj, whereby order dated 24.9.2012 passed by Rent Controller-2 Shimla in Rent Case No. 14/2 of 2009, titled as Baba Jang Bahadur Vs. D.P. Bhardwaj has been reversed and petitioner/tenant has been ordered to be evicted for arrears of rent of ₹48,243/- with direction that on deposit of arrears of rent within 30 days from the date of passing of order dated 19.5.2014, tenant will not be evicted from the demised premises.
2. Supreme Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana and others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 499 , referring its earlier pronouncement in Rai Chand Jain vs. Chandra Kanta Khosla, (1991) 1 SCC 422, with respect to scope of revisional power under Section 20 of Kerala Rent Control Act, which is similar to H.P. Rent Act, has observed that notwithstanding the fact that Section 20 of the Act conferring revisional jurisdict
Revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; it is limited to assessing legality and propriety without re-evaluating evidence.
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....
Section 24(5) of Rent Act empowers High Court to entertain Revision Petition at any time, but “any time” is to be a reasonable time.
Court affirmed that revising authority cannot re-evaluate factual findings unless they are grossly erroneous or perverse, affirming the standards of evidence interpretation in eviction cases.
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants cannot deny the status of a landlord based on the agreed rent and must provide satisfactory evidence to support their claims.
The eviction of a tenant can be justified based on wilful default, evidenced by non-payment of rent, regardless of claims about the landlord's identity or agreements made post-tenancy.
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
