Himachal Pradesh Court September 1993 Judgments

Parkash Chand and ors. Vs. Hans Raj and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 30-1-1989 passed by District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts at Mandi whereby the appeal of the appellants-defendants was rejected and the cross-objections of respondents-plaintiffs were accepted. The District Judge has affirmed the decree of the trial Court so far it pertains to the possession of the property in dispute and permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from making any sort of alteration etc. in the property in dispute. The decree for recovery of Rs. 150/- being damages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from 11-10-1977 to 24-10-1977 was modified and the respondents-plaintiffs were held entitled to future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per month from 24-10-1977 onwards till the delivery of the possession of the property in dispute. The respondents-plaintiffs were ordered to make good the deficiency in court fee within a period of fortnight.2. The pro...

B.N. Gupta Vs. Ganga Ram

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994HP126

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner-landlord has come up in revision under Section 16(8) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an order passed by the Rent Controller (4), Shimla on 14th August, 1992 dismissing his petition seeking eviction of tenant-respondent under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. 2. On 21st August, 1990, a petition under Sub-section (2) of the Section 15 was filed by the petitioner seeking tenant's eviction from the upper flat No. 27/1, Boileauganj, Shimla, comprising three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine and a glazed verandah. It was alleged that the petitioner was due to retire from the post of State Vocational Guidance Officer in the Labour and Employment Directorate of the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 31st July, 1991. The petitioner being a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of word as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, was entitled to seek respondent's evic...