RAMESH SONDHI Vs. VED PRAKASH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-7-35
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 16,1997

RAMESH SONDHI Appellant
VERSUS
VED PRAKASH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J. - (1.)Petitioner(hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has filed this revision petition under Section 16 of the H.P Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) preferred an eviction petition claiming himself to be a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act.
(2.)Ground on which eviction was claimed was that since the petitioner is retiring on 31 -1 -1990 and the premises are required by him for his personal and bonafide requirement and he being a specified landlord, does not own any other suitable accommodation in the urban area concerned. Premises in question are situate within the municipal limits of Palampur town in its Ward No. 3. It is not in dispute that the premises initially belonged to one Yog Raj Sangrai, who had three sons and widow by the name of Bhagirathi. Petitioner is one of his three sons. Premises were let out by the said Yog Raj to the tenant in the year 1975. this petition was filed under Section 15(2) of the Act. From the records it appears that leave to defend was accorded to the tenant. Thereafter the parties went to trial on the following issues:
(3.)By means of impugned judgment, Rent Controller below held issues No. 1 and 4 -A in the affirmative, whereas issues No. 2 to 4 were held in the negative and consequently under issue No. 5, order of eviction of the tenant from the premises in question was passed. While allowing the petition, it was held that the petitioner is a specified landlord also he requires the premises in question bona fide for his personal use.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.