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.

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/landlord Virender Mohan Sood, has filed the petition, under Section 14 of the Act, regarding the premises, described as 75, Second Floor, Lower Bazar, Shimla-I (hereinafter referred to be as ‘the demised premises’). The demised premises is residential in nature, consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and one toilet. Rent of the same has been pleaded @ Rs. 75/- per month, inclusive of municipal taxes. Father of the respondent was inducted as tenant in the said premises.

4.1 The eviction has been sought on the following grounds:

i) That the respondent is stated to be in the arrears of rent from April, 2001 @ 75/- per month, and he has failed to pay the rent. As such, he is liable to be evicted and also to pay statutory interest @ 9 % plus costs.

ii) The petitioner/landlord requires the demised premises for his own occupation and his family, as he is Non-Resident Indian and has now retired.

iii) The petitioner/landlord is not occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area of Shimla and the petitioner has not vacated such a building within five years of filing of the petition.

4.2 The demised premises is stated to be fallen in the share of the petitioner, in the family settlement. Mutation, in this regard, has also been attested. Hence, the relief, as claimed, has been prayed to be granted to him.

5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed reply admitting the tenancy. However, according to respondent No. 1, after death of Amar Chand Sood, tenancy rights in the property were inherited by his legal heirs, i.e. respondents, as well as, his daughters, namely Santosh Sood and Sushma Sood. As such, the petition is stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. The eviction petition has further been contested by pleading that rent of the demised premises used to be collected by Shri Mukesh Sood, younger brother of the petitioner and rent stands paid to him, upto December, 2001. Thereafter, rent was paid to him by cheque as per practice, but, he has not encashed the said cheques. It has further been pleaded that tenants never refused to pay the rent.

7. The grounds of bonafide requirement