Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Sharma, (deceased) through his LRs Ankesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The instant Revision Petition has been filed under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “The Act”) against the judgment dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Appellate Authority-I, Una, District Una, H.P. in Rent Appeal Regn. No.1/2020, whereby the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1 Amb, District Una, H.P. in Rent Petition No. 2/2012 has been affirmed.
2. The petitioner herein faced eviction proceedings at the hands of respondent-landlord in respect of two shops in Ward No.7, Nagar Panchayat, Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. on the grounds firstly that the respondent-landlord required the shops i.e. one shop for establishing his son named Ankesh and the other for his own business and, secondly, that the tenant had not paid rent of the shops @ Rs.1500/- and Rs.1700/- per month respectively since January, 2012.
3. The petition was instituted on 17.04.2012.
4. The parties, hereafter shall be referred to as the tenant and the landlord respectively.
5. The tenant filed reply and raised legal objections as to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and estoppel etc. It was submitted that the
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.
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.
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....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.
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 tenant's failure to raise objections during the proceedings precluded the court from entertaining the objection at the revisional stage.
Point of Law : Law is well settled that in absence of any evidence regarding payment of rents or that procedure as laid down under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act....
Failure to follow prescribed rent payment procedure constitutes wilful default under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.
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....
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
