Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
Chitranchal Engineering Service – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Chand (Deceased) through LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. This is a revision petition of tenant under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act’) against judgment dated 27.1.2018, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hamirpur in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2014, whereby the eviction order dated 18.9.2014, passed by the learned Rent Controller-I, Hamirpur in Rent Petition No. 2 of 2012 has been affirmed.
2. The petitioner and the respondents shall hereinafter be referred as the tenant and the landlords respectively.
3. Rent Petition No. 2 of 2012 was filed by the landlords against the tenant seeking his eviction from the premises having one shop in the ground floor and one shop on the first floor of building comprised in Khasra No. 1294, situated in Up-Mohal Gandhinagar, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘premises’).The grounds were that the tenant had failed to pay the rent w.e.f. the month of October, 2009 till the filing of the petitioner and the premises were required by the landlords for their bonafide personal use and occupation, as their children despite having professional qualifications were unemployed and the landlords were having no other bui
Landlords must establish compliance with statutory requirements for eviction under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, including not occupying another building and not vacating without sufficient cause.
The eviction of tenants under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act necessitates strict adherence to statutory grounds, particularly regarding personal bona fide requirements and timely rent deposits.
The landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction is paramount, and the tenant's claims must be substantiated; revisional jurisdiction does not allow reappraisal of evidence.
The court reinforced that bona fide requirement of the landlord for business expansion is legitimate unless proven otherwise by the tenant, affirming limits of revisional jurisdiction in reviewing fa....
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....
Deposit of rent arrears after 30 days of eviction order, even pursuant to High Court interim direction, does not invoke 3rd proviso to Section 14(2)(i) protecting tenant from eviction; strict statuto....
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.
Bona fide personal need persists till final decree despite subsequent vacation/re-letting of other units in multi-storied building; landlord chooses age-suited premises, tenant cannot dictate; subseq....
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
