IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.76 of 2009 Reserved on: 15^th May, 2025 Date of decision: 27^th August, 2025 Savitri Puri (deceased) & others …Petitioners Versus Surinder Kumar & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioners: Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate for petitioners No.2 to

5.

Petitioner No.1 stands deleted on account of death vide order dated 11.10.2023.

For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Sehgal and Mr.Bhim Raj, Advocates, for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.9 Kamla Chona stands i deleted vider Court order dated H 11.10.2023.

None for other respondents.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Petitioners have 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 31.3.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Chamba, District Chamba in Rent Appeal No.14 of 2008 titled as Savitri Puri and others vs. Surinder Kumar and others, whereby order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Chamba, District Chamba in Rent Control Act No.5 of 2004 titled as Surinder Kumar Chona vs. Savitri Puri and others has been affirmed.

2 Present petition has been preferre d on the ground that landlord did not require the premiseso bonafide nor the building was required to be reconstructed and, in any event, repair could be carried out in business premises without premises being evicted. The building was in good condition and did not require reconstruction. Further that the ground of rebuilding/reconsotruction was not specifically pleaded and, therefore, no evidence Cwas permissible to be led on the issue. No plan of building, sought to be constructed, had been sanctioned, whereas it was essential requirement of law to plead and prove that plan of proposed construction had been sanctioned and building requires reconstruction which could not ibe carried out without building being vacated. Further that Authority below did not decide the challenge laid by petitioners on issues No.5 to 8. In alternative, it has been claimed that in case Court finds no favour to interfere in impugned eviction order, petitioners are entitled for entry in premises after re-construction/rebuilding.

3 The Rent Controller after completion of pleadings had framed following issues:-

1. Whether respondents No. 1 to 5 have ceased to be the tenants of the disputed premises, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether respondents No.1 to 5 have sublet the disputed premises to respondents No.5A namely Shri Dheeraj Gautam, as alleged?OPP

3. Whether the petitioner requires the disputed premises for his personal use as alleged? OPP

4 Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected as the petitioner wants to reconstruct the premises in dispute being the dilapidated construction as alleged? OPP

5. Whether the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintaionable in the present form as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR

7. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR

8. Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

9 Relief.

4 After framing of issues, evidence was led by both parties and on the basis of material placed on record by parties, it was concluded by the Rent Controller that subletting of disputed premises to respondent No.5A namely Dheeraj Gautam was not proved, however it was proved that premises in reference was rented to Karam Chand, predecessor-in-

interest of petitioners who was father of Hans Raj Puri. APfter death of Karam Chand, Hans Raj remained tenant and after death of Hans Raj, petitioners are in possession of premises in reference and Dheeraj Gautam was proved to be a helper of Hans R aj instead of tenant on account of subletting the premises. o

5 Issue No.1 that petitioners had ceased to be tenants of disputed pr