Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:27085 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 408 of 2024.

Reserved on 10.07.2025 Pronounced on:12.08.2025 Smt. Usha Sharma .....Appellant.

Versuos Municipal Corporation, Shimla and others…..Respondents.

Coram: t The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant : Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall, Mr. Tejasvi Dogra and Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr.Hamender Singh Chandel and Mr.

Aashir Kaith, Advocates, for g respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Shimla.

i Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy H Advocate Genera, for respondents No.

2 and 3-State.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Appellant, by the medium of the present Letters Patent Appeal, has laid challenge to the judgment dated 09.08.2024, rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.3863 of 2023, titled Usha Sharma vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla & Ors, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein has been dismissed and the eviction order passed by the Collector dated 21.02.2023, (Annexure P-9) and upheld in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner dated 05.06.2023, (Annexure P- 14), passed against the petitionerf, which otherwise has been executed, was upheld.

2. A brief narration of the conspectus of facts may be necessary to highlight the issue that arises and appreciate the direction in which we propose to go.

3. It appears that an application was moved by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Shimla, before the Collector on 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) under Section 5 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 HAct”) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises commonly known as 'Pashu Padav' Boileauganj, Shimla, on the grounds that the premises were leased out to Sh. Lakhu Ram (petitioner's father-in-law) for a period of one year only, w.e.f. 01.04.1952 to 31.03.1953. Since the four structures had been constructed in the premises, the petitioner was stated to be in unauthorized possession of two structures in which the petitioner was running a nursery of plants & a shop for selling the plants & seeds and 'Pashu Padav' in the other two structures. It was further averred that the petitioner was also trying to encroach the adjacent land of the respondents. Notice was issued to the petitioner on the aforesaid application on 18f.03.2019 under Section 4(1) of the 1971 Act to show cause as to why eviction order be not passed against her from the aforesaid premises. The notice was served upon the petitioner on 29.03.2019.

4. Petitioner appeared before the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, who was exercising powers of Collector under the 1971 Act, and opposed the application moved by respondent No.1- Municipal Corporation, seeking her eviction. Petitioner, inter alia, took the pleas that the premises in question do not fall Hwithin the ambit of the 1971 Act, the premises was governed by the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, as was applicable at that point of time and now by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The eviction petition instituted against the petitioner under the 1971 Act was not maintainable. It was further averred that the property in question had been leased out by the Municipal Corporation to petitioner's father-in-law (Sh. Lakhu Ram) which authorized him to charge traders, who come to sell & purchase cattle herds and used the premises-'Pashu Padav' for temporary stay. The petitioner, as authorized, was charging the traders for using the property as such and the Eviction petition instituted against thfe petitioner was stated to be not for bona fide purpose but out of malice. The allegations made in the application/Notice were denied by the petitioner in toto.

5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions and on considering and