SHRI OCHHI RAM Vs. SHRI MOTI RAM
LAWS(HPH)-1979-1-9
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on January 05,1979

OCHHI RAM Appellant
VERSUS
MOTI RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This revision petition arises out of an application filed by Moti Ram for the eviction of Ochhi Ram and Narender Parkash from the premises known as, House No. 24, Lower Bazar, Kaithu, Simla, consisting of three rooms, verandah, latrine and bathroom. Moti Ram is the owner of the premises and the said premises had been let out to Ochhi Ram quite a long time back. Moti Ram, who may hereinafter be called the Petitioner, filed a petition under the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (shortly called the Act) for eviction on the three grounds. The first was that he required the premises for his own bona fide use and for the use of his grandson, Ramesh Chand and his family, who is dependent on the Petitioner, and working and living and has to live with him. The present rented accommodation in his occupation is highly insufficient and inadequate for his need and also for accommodating their relatives and guests who visit them. It had been averred that he had no other building of his own in the urban area of Simla nor he had vacated any such building in his occupation within the last five years. The second ground was that Ochhi Ram Respondent had sub-let the premises to Narender Parkash without his permission or consent. The third ground was that the Respondent was in arrears of rent as he owed Rs. 57/- on account of arrears of rent, tax and interest.
(2.) The Petitioner did not press the point of sub-letting before the Courts below and in so far as the ground of arrears of rent, etc. was concerned the Respondent had already paid the same in Court on the first hearing and, therefore, the only ground that survived for eviction was the bona fide requirement of the Petitioner.
(3.) The Respondent in his reply contended that the need of the Petitioner was not bona fide. The alleged grandson of the Petitioner is permanently residing with his father at Delhi who is a permanent Government servant there. It was further averred that the said grandson of the Petitioner is not dependant on the Petitioner. The accommodation presently occupied is more than sufficient for the Petitioner as he is alone residing in the same.;


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