CR/108/2014 of THAKUR DASS Vs SUNITA KUMARI on 31 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Civil Revision No. 108 of 2014

Reserved on : 17.12.2019

Decided on : 31.12.2019

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1 Yes. ]

For the Petitioner:Mr. Y.P Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mr. N.K Gupta, Advocate.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

The landlord/petitioner herein (for short “the landlord”) instituted an eviction petition, bearing No. 5-2, of,2009, before the learned Rent Controller, Court No. (7),Shimla, H.P, (a) wherethrough he seeks the eviction, of, thetenant/ respondent herein (for short “tenant”), from, thedemised premises (described in detail in rent petition), on, the statutory ground(s) (a) in as much as hers falling into arrears1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

of rent, and, (b) hers immediately 12 months prior, to, filing ofthe apposite eviction petition, hers ceasing, to, occupy thetenanted property. However, the learned Rent Controller,ordered for the, eviction of the tenant, from, the demisedpremises, on the ground, of hers falling into arrears of rent,yet it declined, to, make, an, order for eviction, of, the tenant,from, the demised premises, on the afore latter ground vis-a-vis hers hence immediately 12 months, prior to the filing ofthe eviction petition, hers ceasing rather to occupy, the,tenanted premises.

2. The aggrieved landlord, hence, constituted againstthe afore declining(s), by, the learned trial Court, rather anappeal bearing No. 33-S/14 of 2013/12, before the learnedDistrict Judge, Shimla, and, the latter Court, declined to makeany interference vis-a-vis the afore verdict, hence recorded, bythe learned Rent Controller, and, obviously hence recorded, a,verdict in affirmation thereto.

3. The landlord feeling aggrieved, from, the aforemade concurrent order(s), has, constituted thereagainst(s),hence, the instant Civil Revision Petition, before this Court.4.The learned counsel for the landlord, does notpress, qua the initial ground, set forth in the apposite evictionpetition, and, appertaining to hers falling into arrears of rentbecoming meted an adjudication, as, he fairly submits, beforethis Court, that, the entire quantum of arrears of rent, asbecame determined, under, the impugned verdict, has becomedeposited, hence, within the statutorily ordained period oftime. Consequently the only surviving controversy rathersquarely appertains, to, the validity, of, the declining(s) to thelandlord, the relief appertaining, to, his striving to seek, the,eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, on anvil ofhers’ 12 months prior to the filing of the afore petition, henceceasing to occupy them. For the reasons to be ascribedhereinafter all the reason(s), as become, concurrently meted byboth the Courts below, for, declining hence, the afore relief to the landlord, has, become harboured, upon, qua vis-a-vis theafore statutorily reared ground, rather echoings becomingencapsulated, in the testimony of PW-5 (Sushil Kumar), (a)wherein he unravels qua since 1999-2000, rather, the,apposite license(s) becoming issued vis-a-vis the tenant, forhers, in the demised premises, becoming enabled, to, operate,the, business, of, a goldsmith, (b) and, whereupon, aconclusion become reared vis-a-vis iposo facto thereon, ratherthe landlord becoming estopped, to, contend, that since 12months, immediately prior to the institution, of, the evictionpetition hence the tenant rather ceasing to occupy, the,demised premises. The prime reason, for, hence enfeebling,the, afore made concurrent conclusion, is, anchored, upon, Ex.PW-3/A (a) exhibit whereof, rather details the meterreading(s), appertaining to the demised premises, and, withechoings becoming borne therewithin, rather, unfolding quafrom January, 2007 uptill March, 2008, hence encapsulatingtherewithin, the, apposite period, of, one year rather prior to

the institution, of, the eviction petition concerned, rather inthe year May, 2009, qua there being either lack of or minimalconsumption, of, electricity, hence within the demisedpremises, (b) the further corollary thereof is qua no business,of, goldsmith becoming operationalized therefrom, and,thereupon a conclusion also becoming sparked qua, dehors,apposite licence(s), for, the afore purpose, becoming ratherissued by the apposite authority concerned, theirs beingunworkable, for, the tenant to contend, that, she in garbthereof, rather continuing to operate, from, the demisedpremises, hence, the business, of, a goldsmith.

5. Be that as it may, the tenant, was also enjoined, to,place on record, the details of staff maintained, in thepremises concerned, for hers carrying therein, the, business ofa goldsmith besides was also enjoined, to, therealongwithadduce hence all the receipts, showing hence disbursement(s),of, payment to them. However, the afore records remain un-adduced, and, further when the tenant has also not placed, on, record, the, books of account/ledgers, hence reflective vis-a-vis,all the ornaments and jewelery, as purportedly becamemanufactured in the relevant phase, in, the demised premises,hence becoming sold, to, the customers concerned, (a) and,further there onwards also with no evidence becomingadduced, and, as comprised in the apposite income taxreturns, becoming instituted by her, before the tax authoritiesconcerned, (b) thereupon in the absence, of, the afore evidence,a conclusion ensues, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, becomingnot used hence by the tenant, for hers, operating therefrom,the, business of, a, goldsmith, and, also a conclusion becomesfilliped, qua the landlord rather establishing, the, statutoryground, qua the tenant 12 months, prior to his instituting, the,rent petition, hers ceasing to occupy, the, demised premises.

6. In view of the above, the present petition, standsallowed, and, the impugned judgment(s) rather suffer, from, agross mis-appreciation, and, absurdity of appreciation, of,evidence on record, and, also of law, and, warrants theirs being undone, and, hence, stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

31st December, 2019(priti)

( Sureshwar Thakur ),

Judge.