Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Kartaroo Devi – Appellant
Versus
Anil Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. This Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as the Act in short) against the order dated 6.5.2022, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Act (herein after referred to as the Appellate Authority) in Rent Appeal No. 32-S/14 of 2020, titled as Kartaroo Devi Vs. Anil Sharma, whereby order of eviction dated 13.10.2020, passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Petition No. 41-2 of 2017/13, titled as Anil Sharma Vs. Kartaro Devi, has been upheld.
2. Petitioner herein is tenant and respondent is landlord and hereinafter they have been referred as tenant and landlord respectively.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
4. Landlord has preferred petition against tenant for her eviction from Shop No. 43/2, Ward No. 3 Lower Kaithu, Shimla-1, a non residential Halwai shop, on the ground that occupation of premises was bonafide required by the landlord for carrying out repair work and also major addition and alteration work in the building including the premises in referenc
The High Court holds that a landlord's need for property repairs overrides the tenant's claims, reaffirming limited revisional jurisdiction.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
Eviction allowed for bona fide business expansion despite other premises if not reasonably suitable; use and occupation charges enhanced to market rate using credible comparables during stay.
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 right to re-entry for tenants post-eviction is contingent upon mutual agreement and completion of rebuilding, not an absolute right.
Section 25 empowers the Rent Controller to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of evidence as the Court is empowered under CPC.
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
