Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)ShimLC175
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 26.3.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2001 setting aside the judgment, decree dated 19.3.2001 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in case No. 74-1 of 1998.2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 24.6.1991 passed by Collector Sadar, Sub Division, Bilaspur and order dated 12.3.1997 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi are void and not binding on appellant inasmuch as the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short 'Public Premises Act') is not applicable, the appellant is a tenant in the suit premises. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the appellant has also been prayed. In case appellant is dispossessed from the suit premises during the pendency of the suit then possession may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1994HP71
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. The three revision petitions, though arising out of separate orders passed by appellate authority(I), Shimla and also arising out of separate eviction proceedings can conveniently be disposed of by a common order, since questions of law and fact arising are almost same and similar.2. Civil Revision 65 of 1992. This civil revision has arisen out of eviction petition preferred by late Darshan Singh Kochhar, who is now represented by his son Satwant Singh Kochhar, in which eviction of the Girls Industrial Training School, located in a part of the Willow Bank building. The Mall, Shimla was sought. The ground for eviction as made out in the petition was that the entire building has become very old. It has outlived its utility and life. The premises in question as well as the other portion of the building Willow Bank in occupation of the other tenants are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building, which building and re-building c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 3.5.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 10-S/13 (b) of 05/03. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake) is the owner of shop No.1, Lahauri Market, building No. 142-145/1, Lahauri Market, Lower Bazar, Shimla. He purchased this shop in the year 1980 by way of sale deed on 21.11.1990 Ex.PW-8/A. Petitioner-tenant, Arun Kumar, and proforma respondent-tenant, Manohar Lal were inducted as tenants in the shop in the year 1971. Rent deed was entered between the landlord and tenants on 17.11.1971 vide Ex.PW-8/B. The shop at that time was owned by Faquir Chand. The eviction of the tenants was sought on the following grounds: i) It is alleged that the tenants sublet the premises to M/s Vijay Crockery and Tent House and the tenants have parted with the possession. The possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP1
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. This revision petition had been referred to the Division Bench by Hardayal Hardy Judge. Delhi High Court, in August 1970 when that High Court had its jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh. The point referred to is whether the said respondents (Union of India and Himachal Pradesh Administration), now substituted by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide order, dated 8-4-1971 are tenants within the meaning of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949?2. Smt. Rai Kumari Soni is the owner of a building known as 'Onkar Lodge' at Simla. On 9-4-1965. Dr. D. D. Arora. Deputy Director of Health Services and Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya. Assistant Director of Health Services, with the approval of the Director of Health Services. Himachal Pradesh took from the petitioner the lower flat of the aforesaid building on a monthlv rental of Rs. 150/-. On 13-1-1966 Smt. Raj Kumari Soni filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of Dr. D. D. Arora and Dr. D. K. Bhattachar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. Since common question of law and facts arises for determination in both the civil revisions, this judgment is meant to dispose of both of them by a common judgment, which otherwise have arisen out of separate proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent against deceased Ruli Ram, tenant-petitioner, who is now represented byhis legal representatives. 2. The respondent-landlord on 26th May, 1984, filed a petition seeking eviction of tenant Ruli Ram from a residential flat located above shops Nos. 80/81. The Mall, Shimla, on the ground that the tenant had got building 'Oak Over Villa', Jakhu in his own right wherein he has acquired vacant possession of a residential set, which has more accommodation than the accommodation in question on the Mall and that the said tenant has rendered himself liable for eviction. The petition was contested by the tenant, who set up a plea that the tenancy was a composite one with that of shop No. 81, The Mall, Shimla. While passin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995HP87
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. This is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 15th December, 1988 by the Additional District Judge, Solan dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 7th December, 1985 by the Senior Sub-Judge, Solan decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following questions of law:1. Whether the appellants who were residing with Rattan Chand and Bhagwanti Devi at the time of their death are entitled to inherit the tenancy rights under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987?2. Whether the appellants were trespassers in the premises and the decree for possession passed by Civil Court is sustainable in law?2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.3. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for possession by way of ejectment of defendant-appellants from a residential premises comprising two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, verand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999HP59
Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner who claims herself to be from the family of Freedom Fighters has filed this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation claiming the following reliefs : '(i) That the permission granted to the respondent No. 5 by respondents No. 2 and 4 for setting up the industry by the name of M/s. Ajay Tyre Retreaders may kindly be quashed and setaside; (ii) That the respondent No. 1 may be directed to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 5 under the H.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1968; (iii) That the construction being raised by the respondent No. 5 may be directed to be demolished; (iv) That the respondent No. 5 may be directed not to use the water from the rivulet as well as from the natural water spring in the vicinity of industry; (v) That the respondent No. 3 may be directed to instruct the Gram Panchayats throughout the State to prepare model plans for the Villages to have control on erection of buildings; (vi) Any other relief de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ShimLC1
V.K. Gupta, C.J.1. Vide order dated 14th September, 2006, respondents No. 4 to 8 were set ex-parte.2. Vide the impugned order dated 13th April, 2006, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) summarily disposed of Revenue Revision No. 96 of 2001 only on the ground that since the aforesaid revision petition had been filed under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (Central Act No. 44/1954) and because the said Act had been repealed by the Displaced Persons Claims and other Laws Repeal Act, 2005 (Central Act No. 38/2005) and since there was no saving Clause in the aforesaid repealing Act, the revision petition was not maintainable.3. Apparently, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was not aware of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No. 10 of 1897) which very clearly stipulates and lays down that despite repeal of any Central Act, such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment repealed, or an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ShimLC498
Rajiv Sharma, J.1. This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61-S/13(B) of 2006.2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord, hereinafter referred to as the landlord for convenience sake, has filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioners-tenants, hereinafter referred to as the tenants for convenience sake, in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Court No. 3, Shimla.3. The landlord has sought eviction of tenants on the ground that the premises were bona fidely required by him for reconstruction of the entire building, which rebuilding could not be carried out unless the tenants vacate the premises in question. He wants to reconstruct the building on modern lines. He has got a plan sanctioned from the Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : II(2002)ACC220
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 34 of 1982 on November 2/3, 1989. By means of impugned decree, suit of the appellants, (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs') has been partly decreed against respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No. V), with proportionate costs in terms of the decree, dismissing rest of the claim as set up in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 has filed the Cross Objections against the decree that has been passed against it.2. A suit for recovery of Rs. 6,32,058/- was filed by the plaintiffs against defendant No. 1 and other respondents who were also arrayed as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit, and all of them hereinafter are being referred hereto as defendants. Defendant No. 1 is Kullu Municipal Committee, defendant No. 2 is the Secretary of the Committee. Defendant No. 3 is Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and defendant No. 4 is the State of Hima...
Tag this Judgment!