IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

RSA No.178/2021

Date of Decision: 05th December, 2025.

Hardev Ratra .....Appellant

Versus .

Diwakar Dutt Modgil …..Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellant: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Shtikha Chauhan, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negri, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of

the Code of Civilo Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Shimla, Dishtrict Shimla, HP in Civil Appeal No.3-S/13 of 2020, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.6, District Shimla, HP in Civil Suit

HNo.136-1 of 2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned trial Court. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that as per the case of plaintiff, he is the owner of the building known as Modgil Bhawan, situated on the land comprised in Khasra No. 274/215, at VPO Shoghi, Tehsil and District Shimla,

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

H.P. In the year 1996, the plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant in one shop in the said building for a monthly rent Pof Rs.

5,000/-. The plaintiff, vide notice dated 15.05.2014, terminated the tenancy and required the defendant to hand over possession within 15 days. Upon the defendant's failure to vacate, the plaintiff claimed use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day, leading to the filing of the eviction suit. t

3. The defendant contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, the plaintiff not approaching the court with clean hands, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties, and improper notice. On merits, the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner, that the tenancy commenced in 1993 at a rent of Rs. 500/-

glater enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-, that the notice was invalid, and that the plaintiff had no right to terminate. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff continued to accept rent even after the notice, thereby negating the termination, and that the suit was filed for harassment, as the plaintiff had sufficient alternate accommodation.

4. The plaintiff, in replication, reasserted the plaint's contents. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the premises-Modgil Bhawan, at Shoghi by termination of tenancy after serving the legal notice dated 15.05.20214, as alleged?...OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged?...OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, as alleged?...OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his own acts, conduct, deed, omission, commission, acquiescence, etc, as alleged?...OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad f or non-issuance of the proper notice as per the law, as alleged?...OPD

6. Relief?.

5. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself and one witness, exhibiting the rtermination notice, its receipt, and related documents. The defendant examined himself and a bank official, exhibiting bank statements and pay-in-slips. The learned trCial court decreed the suit, deciding issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issues no. 2 to 5 against the dehfendant.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the first appeal, inter alia, on grounds that the judgment was based on conjecture; that the trial court ignored evidence, particularly regarding the plaintiff not being the absolute owner and the non-joinder of co-owners; that no legal notice was issued or received; that