This revision petition challenged an order dismissing a tenant's appeal against eviction. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the tenant had ceased occupation of the premises and was in arrears of rent after joining government service, dismissing the revision.
The revision petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
C. Revision No.132/2010
Decided on:7.12.2010
Mohan Lal.
...Petitioner.
Versus
Kamla Devi. ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 . Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Una exercising the powers of Appellate Authority, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act,1987 in Rent Appeals No. 2/2010 and 3 of 2010, whereby Rent Appeal preferred by the petitionertenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ for convenience sake) has been dismissed and the Rent Appeal preferred by the respondent-landlady (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlady’ for
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes .
2
convenience sake) has also been dismissed and has also disposed of the Rent Appeal preferred by the landlady, as per the observations contained in the operative portion of the judgment.
3
4
He has failed to prove that the electricity bills pertain to the demised premises, which were let out to him by the landlady. Since the tenant has joined the Government service, he could not run private clinic. In other words, he has ceased to occupy the demised premises. The findings returned by the Rent Controller that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.5.1999 to 31.12.2010 is based on correct appreciation of evidence. The same has rightly been upheld by the Appellate Authority. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the judgments passed by both the courts below.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge.
7.12.2010
***** awasthi *****
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower courts correctly found that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises and was in arrears of rent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Lal
Kamla Devi
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
