Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Mohan Lal Goel – Appellant
Versus
Prabha Bhagra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred, invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘Rent Act’) against judgment dated 28.11.2005, passed by Appellate Authority, Fast Track, Shimla, in Rent Appeal No. 15-S/14 of 2004/2000, titled as Prabha Bhagra and others Vs. Jawala Devi and others, whereby order dated 26.11.1999, passed in Case No. 93/2 of 95/92, titled as Smt. Prabha Bhagra and others Vs. Smt. Jawala Devi and others, by Rent Controller-II, Shimla, has been reversed and tenant(s) have been declared in arrears of rent amounting to Rs.40,558/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and cost of petition and tenant(s) have also been directed to vacate the premises on the ground of impairing value and utility of demised premises by raising unauthorized construction.
2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein had filed petition for eviction as landlords, whereas petitioner No. 1 Jawala Devi (deleted before Appellate Authority being expired) was impleaded as tenant being successor of original tenant (respondent No. 1) Dalip Chand, whereas petitioners No. 2 to 9 were arrayed as r
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
The High Court holds that a landlord's need for property repairs overrides the tenant's claims, reaffirming limited revisional jurisdiction.
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....
Tenancy under Rent Control Act devolves firstly to surviving spouse with personal right not further inheritable; unauthorized construction on tenanted premises by non-successors demolishable; rights ....
Revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction; it is limited to assessing legality and propriety without re-evaluating evidence.
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.
Tenancy and Land laws - Eviction - There is nothing that petitioners have been able to bring forth to indicate that finding has been arrived at by a misreading of facts or omitting relevant evidence ....
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.
Section 24(5) of Rent Act empowers High Court to entertain Revision Petition at any time, but “any time” is to be a reasonable time.
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
