Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Mohd. Yakub – Appellant
Versus
Parmod Gautam (deceased) through LRs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, HP in Rent Case No.12 of 2015, titled Parmod Gautam (deceased) through LRs. Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Anr.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order.
3. The rent petition, in the case at hand, had been filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents i.e. one Sh. Parmod Gautam. The said petition had been filed on 26.10.2015. During the pendency of the rent petition, Parmod Gautam had died. His LRs i.e. present respondents are ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 29.10.2022.
4. During the pendency of the rent petition, an objection was taken qua the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents that he (Parmod Gautam) is not the landlord. After the death of Parmod Gautam, an application had been filed for taking the same objection qua the legal heirs of deceased-Parmod Gautam.
5. The said application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court has correctly observed that the objection taken qua the original landlord (Parmod Gautam) holds
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to ensuring no grave dereliction of duty occurs, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting the lower court's conclusions.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring compliance with legal parameters and does not extend to correcting errors of law or fact.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not to correct every legal error or re-weigh evidence.
The need for an authenticated copy of the impugned order when challenging it under Article 227 and the power of superintendence under Article 227 to maintain public confidence in the functioning of t....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, not to correct mere errors of law or fact.
The court affirmed that the tenant's failure to contest the landlord's bona fide need led to an adverse inference, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227.
Issue regarding rent shall be decided by City Civil Court at the time of adjudication of suit for eviction of respondent.
Delay in seeking amendment of pleadings post-defendant's death was unjustified, highlighting the need for diligence in civil proceedings.
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
