HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN SIMLA Vs. BHANNO MULL AND SONS
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SIMLA
BHANNO MULL, SONS
Click here to view full judgement.
BHAWANI SINGH, J. -
(1.) This revi-sion petition by the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation (hereafter 'peti-tioner') assails the judgment of District Judge (Appellate Authority), Shimla in Case No. C.M.A. 174-S/14 of 1981, decided on 15-7-1982, whereby the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in Case No. 32-2-79 dated 4-8-1981 has been confirmed.
(2.) The respondent instituted eviction application under S. 14(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereafter shortly 'Rent Control Act') for the eviction of the petitioner from building "Wynstay", Lower Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. The ground of eviction has been specifically 'stated in para 16(a) as follows :-
"The tenant has used the building after the commencement of the H.P.U.R.C. Act, 1971 without the written consent of the landlord for a purpose other than that for which it was leased i.e., whereas the building was hired out' for the purpose of using it as an office for the transport department, the said building was firstly handed over to the office of the Divisional Commissioner, H.R.T.C. North Zone and the G.M. shifted his office to Khilini who was previously using the entire building i.e., both the floors for his office as was agreed upon but when the Divisional Commissioner aforesaid occupied the building, whereas he used the 1st floor for the office, the ground floor of the said premises was converted into his residence and he along with his family occupied the same as residence thus convert-ing the user of the said building and thus using it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The petitioner served a notice on the respondent whereupon the respondent made the Divisional Commissioner vacate the said building and again shifted his own office from Khilini. into the said building."
(3.) In its reply to para 16(a), the petitioner denied the allegations and it has been stated that the premises had been used for housing its head office. For some time during the past, the head office was shifted to some other building and these premises were occupied by the Divisional Manager of the petitioner for his office. The premises had always been used for the purpose for which they were let out. In rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner, it has been asserted that the portions of the building were used for residence of the Divisional Commissioner and some of his staff, therefore, for a purpose other than that for which it was originally let out.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.