( 2025:HHC:37859 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P.RADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No. 58 of 2017 a/w Civil

Revision Nos. 59 & 60 of 2017

Date of Decisi on: 11th November, 2025

1.Civil Revision No.58 of 2017 f

Shakuntla Shashi and others ……petitioners

Versus

Shabnam Sood

r ……Respondent

2. Civil Revision No. 5u9 of 2017

M.K. Chaudhary …… petitioner

Versus

Shabnam Sood

……Respondent

__________________________________________________________

3. Civil Revision No. 60 of 2017

Y.P. Nautiyal …… petitioner

Versus

Shabnam Sood

i ……Respondent

H_____________________________________________________________

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.

Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

The present revisions have been filed by the

tenant/petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by

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

the 1^st Appellate Court. The landlord /respondent is common in all the three petitions as the tenants/petitioners occupy portions of the same building. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioners/tenants pertains to the existence of a landlord/tenant relationship inter se the parties. Since a common question arises for consideration in all the three petitions therefore all three petitions are being taken up together for consideration.

2. Insofar as Civil Revision No.59 of 2017 titled M. K. Chaudhary versus Shubham Sood is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to Ex.R-1, i.e., legal notice issued by the respondent/landlord to the tenant/petitioner in the aforesaid case. The relevant extract of the legal notice reads as follow:-

“1. That you are a tenant under my client in respect of one hresidential set on a monthly rent of Rs.719/- (incl. of Taxes).”

Reply thereto filed by the tenant/petitioner through a counsel is appended as Ex.R-2. Reply to the aforesaid Paragraph of the legal notice dated 15.12.2006 reads as follow:-

“1. That contents of para 1 of your legal notice are admitted to be correct as indeed my client is a tenant in the building owned by your client.”

3. Similarly, in Civil Revision No.60 of 2017, titled Y.P. Nautiyal versus Shubham Sood is concerned, legal notice dated 15.12.2016 (Ex.PW3/D) is issued by the present respondent/landlord. The relevant extract whereof reads as follow:-

“1. That you are a tenant under my client in respect of one .

residential set on a monthly rent of Rs.654/- (incPl. of Taxes).”

Response thereto filed by the tenant/petitioner through a counsel dated 29.12.2006 reads as follow:-

“1. That contents of para 1 of your notice are admitted to be correct as indeed my client is a tenant in the building owned by your client.”

4. In view of the categoric admission by the petitioners/tenants of being a tenant under the landlord i.e Shubham Sood in the aforesaid two cases at hand, a landlord/tenant relationship stands duly established. Further the fact that the aforesaid two responses were filed through a legal counsel after seeking appropriate legal assistance cannot be lost sight of.

5. Insofar as Civil Revision No.59 of 2017, titled Shakuntla Shashi and others versus Shubham Sood is concerned, the present revision has been filed by the tenant/landlord being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the 1^st Appellate Court, whereby the judgment of the Rent Controller has been reversed. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant pertains to the existence of a landlord/tenant relationship inter se the parties. In this context, attention of this Court has been invited to the Rent Petition specifically paras 3(a) and 3(b) thereof wherein the name and address of the landlord have been detailed. In the reply to the corresponding paragraph, the petitioner/tenant has categorically denied the existence of any landlord/tenant relationship inter se the parties.

6. The eviction p