IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.172/2025.

Date of Decision: 27th November, 2025.

The HP State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural DevelopmPent Bank Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Ramesh Kumar Sood ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 f For the Petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 05.07.2025, passed by the appellate authority, upholding the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, vide order dated 18.05.2024.

2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and the pleadings appended along with the present gpetition.

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed before the learned Rent Controller:-

1. Whether the respondent being tenant has carried out material additions and alterations in the tenanted premises without the consent of the petitioner? OPP.

2. Whether the demised premises is bona fidely required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation? OPP.

3. Whether the demised premises is bona fidely required by the petitioner for the purpose of rebuilding

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

and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without vacating it? OPP.

3A. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the premises without the written consent of the petitioner? OPP

4. If above said issues are proved in affirmative, whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demises premises? OPP.

5. Whether this petition is nfot maintainable in the present form? OPR. o

6. Whether this petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain and file the present petition? OPR.

7. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties of the petition? OPR

8. Whether cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner to file the present petition? OPR

9. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and Cmisjoinder of necessary parties? OPR.

10. Whether petitioner has no approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court? OPR.

4. Eviction had been ordered on all four grounds i.e. (a) on the ground of material addition/alteration in the tenanted Hpremises without the consent of the petitioner, (b) demised premises are bona fidely required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, (c) demised premises are bona fidely required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without vacating the same and (d) last but not the least, on the ground that the user of the premises without the consent of the landlord had been changed.

5. Insofar as the eviction on the said ground is concerned, both Courts have concurrently allowed the eviction petition on the aforesaid four grounds.

6. In the case at hand, an issue with respect .to locus standi of the landlord in maintaining the eviction petition before the learned Rent Controller had been raised. Qua the aforesaid issue, the learned Rent Controller returned a categorical finding that there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant, since the present petitioner/tenant in the case at hand was paying rent to the present respondent/landlord.

7. Insofar as the First Appellate Court is concerned, the First Appellate Court qua the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties is concerned, has made a specific reference to the p leadings, wherein the landlord has categorically pleaded that after the death of Smt. Durga Devi, the tenant was paying rent to the present respondent. In this respect, the claim of the ipresent tenant/petitioner has further been examined by the learned First Appellate Court in light of the fact wherein the tenant/petitioner has categorically claimed that Will of late Smt. Durga Devi had been shown to the tenant/petitioner and after verifying the