Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Tulsi Ram – Appellant
Versus
Mustaq Qureshi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein-after referred to as ‘Rent Act’) against the judgment dated 2.4.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, District Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 7-S/13(B) of 2015 titled as Tulsi Ram vs. Mushtaq Qureshi, whereby order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla in Rent Petition No. 198/2 of 2013/2012 titled as Mustaq Qureshi vs. Tulsi Ram has been affirmed.
2. For convenience petitioner and respondent shall be referred hereinafter according to their status in the Rent Petition, i.e. tenant and landlord respectively.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have also gone through record.
4. Landlord preferred a petition under Section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement with submission that elder son of landlord was working in a private firm at Shimla and younger son was about to complete his 12th Class from the Senior Secondary School, Sunni who was living with landlord and his wife, and was their only caretaker at old age and in view of ailment of landlord a
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....
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 High Court holds that a landlord's need for property repairs overrides the tenant's claims, reaffirming limited revisional jurisdiction.
Revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; it is limited to assessing legality and propriety without re-evaluating evidence.
Landlords must substantiate bona fide need for occupancy. Statutory provisions mandate proving availability of alternatives for tenants, with courts constrained in reconsidering factual findings.
Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
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
