R D KOHLI Vs. JOGINDER LAL SACHDEVA
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
MAJOR JOGINDER LAL SACHDEVA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This civil revision preferred under the provisions of S. 16(8) read with S. 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 28-12-1990 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla. The brief facts of the case necessary to understand its back-ground are that set No. 16, Roop Mahal (Eastern Wing), cart Road, Shimla (herein-after referred to as 'the premises in dispute') was in possession of the petitioners as tenants. Major Joginder Lal Sachdeva, res-pondent, purchased the premises in dispute and thereafter filed an application for eject-ment of the petitioners under the old Act inter alia on the ground of bona fide necessity. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller but was challenged in appeal during the pendency of which the Rent Control Act was amended and a stipulation was introduced that a purchaser of tenanted premises could not maintain an application for ejectment for a period of five years from the date of purchase. This resulted in the withdrawal of the appeal.
(2.) It was on 9-11-1989 that the present application for eviction was moved by Major Sachdeva who invoked the provisions of S. 15 of the new Rent Control Act alleging that he was due to retire on Superannuation on 31/10/1990 and, therefore, was specified landlord under the Act add further that he or his spouse did not own or possess any other premises in Shimla Urban Area or even in the rest of the country. He prayed for ejectment of the petitioners.
(3.) The petitioners, after service of sum-mons on them, appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an affidavit to show the grounds on which Major Sachdeva would be disentitled to claim possession of the premises in dispute, thus praying for leave to defend the application for their ejectment. A counter-affidavit was filed by Major Sachdeva and the learned Rent Controller as stated above after hearing the parties refused to grant leave to the petitioners to defend the application. Hence, an order for their eviction was passed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.