IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 54 of 2021 Reserved on: 25.8.2023 Date of decision : 4.9.202.3.

Neelam Singha ...Petitioner.

Versus J.B.S. Bawa f ...Respondent Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate.

For the respondent : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate C with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

Petitioner herein is the tenant in residential ipremises consisting of two rooms with one kitchen, one toilet and one bathroom in the basement floor of Bawa Bhawan (Melrose) AG Chowk, Shimla-3, H.P. (for short ‘the premises’).

2. The respondent herein is the landlord. The tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the premises on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of the

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

landlord vide order of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller on 18.3.2020 in Case No. 75-2/2017 and affirmed by order dated 21.6.2021 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Shimla passed in Rent Appeal No. 22- S/14/21. By way of instant petition, the tenant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under sub- section (5) of Section 24 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act) to assail the aforesaid orders.

4. During the pendency of this petition, the tenant has filed an application being CMP No. 7577 of 2023, sheeking permission to lead evidence on subsequent events.

gIt is averred in the application that the landlord had filed a iCivil Suit for recovery of possession of accommodation in the same building against one Shri Onkar Shad being Civil Suit No.29/1/2018, titled Bawa Jung Bahadur vs. Sh. Onkar Shad in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla. A compromise was effected in the said suit between the landlord and said Sh. Onkar Shad on 19.12.2019 and under the said compromise, the landlord was put into possession of residential premises having an area of about 72 square meters. The suit between landlord and Sh. Onkar Shad is stated to have been finally decided by the Lok Adalat on 14.3.2020. Along with the application certified copies of documents, prima facie evidencing the factum of compromise between the landlord and Sh. Onkar Shad and the decree passed on such compromise have also been placed on record.

5. In reply to the application, the tenant has submitted that the facts sought to be brought on record have no relevance to the issue involved in the matter. The premises from which the eviction has been ordered is in thhe basement floor of the building and is most suitable for gthe occupation of servant. The events and documents isought to be placed on record were in existence even before the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. It is further stated that Sh. Onkar Shad and other persons who were associated with a political party i.e. CPI(M) had broken the locks to occupy the premises (Set No.8), which had been vacated by the earlier tenant during the intervening night of 8/9.1.2018. The landlord had filed FIR No.08 of 2018 and had also instituted a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. It was in suit for recovery of possession that finally a decree was passed. As per landlord, he is the best person to decide about the suitability of the premises required by him and the tenant is no one to dictate the terms. On such grounds, the dismissal of application has been prayed.

6. In rejoinder to the reply, the tenant has denied the contents of the reply and has reiterated the stand taken in the application. Along with rejoinder, additional documents in the shape of plans Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2 and phhotographs Ext. P-3 to P-13, filed in the Court of Civil gJudge Court No.4, Shimla in Civil Suit between the ilandlord and Shri Onkar Shad have also been placed on record.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the tenant has argued that t