Court : Himachal Pradesh
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. These revision petitions are being disposed of by this single order as they involve common questions of law and facts.2. Sheela Sharma (respondent) is the landlady and Swami Bhandari, Janki Devi and Garib Dass (petitioners) are the - tenants. Three separate applications for the eviction of the petitioners were filed by the respondent, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) and one of the grounds for eviction was the nonpayment of rent.3. The eviction applications were contested by the tenants (petitioners). The Rent Controller, Simla, vide his order Dt. 8-5-1980, passed orders of eviction of the tenants (petitioners) on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.4. The tenants (petitioners) filed appeals on 6-6-1980. The Appellate Authority passed an order (on 6-6-1980) staying the dispossession of the tenants (petitioners) till further orders subject to the condition that arrears of rent accrued up to date w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1978HP2
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The appellants above named have preferred this appeal against the decision given by the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sirmur District in suit No. 137/1 of 1970 on his file dismissing the appellants' suit for possession of the suit premises and eviction of the respondent-defendants therefrom. The suit is with reference to the premises known as old Khalsa Hotel situated on the Mall, Solan bearing Municipal Nos 71/2 and 71/3. The respondents herein are the heirs and legal representatives of late Sardar Kartar Singh who was occupying the suit premises having initially taken them on lease.2. The record of the case shows that the deceased Kartar Singh originally executed rent note Ex. P-15 in favour of one Lala Ram Chander, father of the plaintiffs, on 19-10-1935. That rent note was for a fixed period of two years. Reference to the rent note shows that Kartar Singh has executed this rent note as proprietor of 'Pratap Khalsa Hotel' i. e. in his personal capacity. The record ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Deepak Gupta, J.1. Interesting questions arise in these matters. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 2(k) of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (here-inafter referred to as the Rent Act) sometimes declares the area of Kandaghat to be an urban area and sometimes this notification is withdrawn. When the area of Kandaghat was not within the purview of the Rent Act, civil suits were filed for eviction of the tenants. In the mean time, the area was brought within the ambit of the Rent Act. However, before the decrees could be passed or executed fresh notification was issued again bring the area within the purview of the Rent Act. Later this notification was also withdrawn. Now, the area of Kandaghat has again been declared to be an urban area and thus the Rent Act is again applicable. This has given rise to various disputed questions of law with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to pass a decree and also in respect of the executability ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(I)ShimLC20
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh, dismissing the petitioners appeal assailing the order dated 26.3.2001 passed by the Collector, Solan.Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:2. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother of petitioners No. 2 to 5. Shri Prem Chand husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of the other petitioners was a tenant in Shop No. 4, village Dangyar, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan H.P. owned by respondent No. 3 and after his death the tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs including the petitioners. The tenancy was determined vide notice dated 27.9.1997. Admitted case is that no notice was sent to petitioner No. 1 Roop Kaur. The premises were not vacated, therefore, proceedings for eviction under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), were initiated by...
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 : 2009(2)ShimLC423
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petitioner-judgment debtor (referred to as the defendant) has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 2.5.2009 passed in execution Petition No. 10-10/2008, titled as R.K. Madan and Anr. v. Simtni Karol, by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, Shimla. The objections to the execution of the decree stands dismissed. The respondents herein are the decree-holders (referred to as the plaintiffs).2. Civil Suit No. 61-1/2003, titled as R.K. Madan and Anr. v. Simmi Karol, was decreed in terms of judgment and decree dated 6.7.2007 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. (V), Shimla. The relationship between the plaintiffs, Sh. R.K. Madan and Ms. Rita Madan and the defendant, Smt. Simmi Karol, was held to be that of a licensors and licensee and the suit was decreed wherein the defendant was directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and also pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ304HP
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of fact and law arise in all of them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as daily waged workers on behalf of the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh, District Hamipur (hereinafter called 'the Trust') and all of them with the exception of a few, had completed 240 days in a year before their disengagement orally, without giving any notice or compensation. The case set up by the petitioners is that their disengagement is retrenchment as defined under clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') but conditions precedent to it i.e. notice of one month and payment of compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Act have not been followed, hence it is bad in law. As such, the petitioners have prayed for their reinstatement with all consequential benefits.2. The Trust is included in the Schedule to the Religiou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : II(2003)DMC319
M.R. Verma, J.1. This appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 3.2.1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, in H.M.A. Petition No. 13/1996, whereby a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties has been granted in favour of the respondent.2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are as follows : The respondent herein instituted a petition Under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) of the Act against the appellant for a decree for divorce. His case, as made out in the petition, is that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on May 11,1986 according to the Hindu rites at village Khad, Teh. and Distt, Una. After the marriage, parties lived and cohabited as husband and wife at Yamuna Nagar and a female child named Puja was born out of the wedlock on 1.4.1987. While residing at Yamuna Nagar after the marriage, the appellant start...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
1. Present Regular First Appeal has been directed by the appellant-defendant, having felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.6 of 2003, decided on 20th November, 2008 whereby the suit for recovery filed by the respondents, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiffs’, was decreed for a sum of `3,30,000/- as damages for causing death of Naranjan Singh, husband of respondent No.1 Trishla Devi, by fire-shot by the appellant, hereinafter to be called as ‘the defendant’. 2. In short, the brief facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. On 5th August, 2001, at about 6.40 pm, Naranjan Singh deceased a class IV employee in the Ayurvedic Department, was working in the fields of his brother Rakesh Kumar alongwith other family members. The defendant came to the spot alongwith his servant Ramu and threatened the deceased with dire consequences, in case he alongwith his family members would not desist fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Sanjay Karol, J.1. The petitioner- tenant has filed the present petition under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the impugned judgment dated 1.7.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Rent Appeal No. 5-RA/14 of 2003 titled as Krishan Kumar v. Jagjit Kaur, affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Controller, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, vide order dated 28.3.2003 passed in Rent Petition No. 3/2 of 2001 titled as Jagjit Kaur v. Krishan Kumar.2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlady and are referred to as such in the present revision petition.3. The landlady filed a petition for eviction of the tenanted premises comprising of a shop (3.15 mtrs x 8.70 mtrs.), on the ground that the construction is very old and for the purposes of constructing a Shopping Complex and a residence, eviction of the tenant is necessary as without demolition of the shop rec...
Tag this Judgment!