Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Varinder Mohan Sood – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Gopal Sood – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition, under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act), against the judgment dated 27.12.2022, passed in Appeal No. 3-S/13b of 2021, by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, (exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Controller Act, 1987).
2. By way of judgment dated 27.12.2022, the learned Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of the respondents and the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Court No. II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Controller’), alongwith Rent Petition, filed by the petitioner, was ordered to be dismissed partly to the extent by virtue of which, the petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner/landlord.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Rent Controller.
4. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, may be summed up as under:
Petitioner/la
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.
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....
A landlord's bona fide necessity for eviction must be established, and a prior dismissal does not preclude a new application if circumstances change.
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.
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 requirement of the landlord for eviction must be judged based on the circumstances at the time of filing the petition, and subsequent events do not affect the bonafide need established by the lan....
Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.
Landlords must substantiate bona fide need for occupancy. Statutory provisions mandate proving availability of alternatives for tenants, with courts constrained in reconsidering factual findings.
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
