Landlords challenged an appellate order staying their eviction because it did not direct deposit of use and occupation charges. Since their Section 151 CPC application for such charges remained pending before the Appellate Authority, the court directed that body to dispose of the application expeditiously.
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.
( 2024:HHC:7784 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 71/2024 Decided on: 02.09.2024 Vishal Sood & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Subash Chand & others .…Respondents.
………………………………………………………………………………. Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate.
For respondents: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.
Petitioners are the landlords. An eviction order was passed on 17.05.2022 by the learned Rent Controller Court No.(II), Shimla, in their Rent Petition No. 18/2 of 2016/12 (Vishal Sood & Anr. Vs. Rikhi Ram).
The aforesaid eviction order was assailed by the respondents in Rent Appeal No. 45/2022 before the learned Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 10.05.2024, learned Appellate Authority stayed the operation and execution of the eviction order dated 17.05.2022.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
( 2024:HHC:7784 )
2. The landlords have assailed the aforesaid order dated 10.05.2024 on the limited ground that Use and Occupation charges have not been ascertained and directed to be deposited by the tenant in the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that an application of the present petitioners instituted under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code with a prayer to direct the present respondents to make payment of Use and Occupation charges is still pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Authority. Without waiting for the decision of that application, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition, hence, the instant petition is premature.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact that an application moved by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to make payment of Use and Occupation charges is still pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Authority. That being the position, the only order that can be passed in this revision petition is to direct the learned Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the aforesaid application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 CPC seeking payment of Use and Occupation charges expeditiously, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
3
( 2024:HHC:7784 )
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
02nd September, 2024 (rohit)
1 issue framed by the court
Should the Appellate Authority be directed to expedite disposal of the pending Section 151 CPC application seeking use and occupation charges, given the revision petition was premature?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishal Sood & Anr.
Subash Chand
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
