Sh. Upendra Nath Roy vs "28. In View Of My Findings ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5888 HP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021




                                                             .
                                   BEFORE





                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

                        CIVIL REVISION No. 46 of 2016





    Between:-

    SH. ARUN KANTI ROY, SON OF LATE





    SH. UPENDRA NATH ROY, RESIDENT
    OF UPPER FLOOR, KALYAN LODGE,
    LAKKAR BAZAAR, SHIMLA, (H.P.).
                       r           ..........TENANT/PETITIONER

    (BY  MR.   B.N.  MISRA,  SENIOR

    ADVOCATE    WITH   MR.  KASHISH
    BHAROTA, ADVOCATE)
    AND


    SH. RAKESH AHUJA, SON OF LATE
    SH. MADAN LAL AHUJA, RESIDENT
    OF HOTEL BROAD VIEW, SANJAULI,
    SHIMLA (H.P.)




                                                    ........RESPONDENT





    (BY MR. Y.P. SOOD, ADVOCATE FOR THE
    RESPONDENT.)
    _________________________________________________________________





                Whether approved for reporting: No

                This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the

    Court passed the following:-

                                   ORDER

By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore respectfully prayed that the revision

petition may kindly be allowed and judgment dated

.

17/11/2015 delivered by Ld. Appellate Authority

IV, Shimla, in Rent Appeal No. 5-S/14 of 2015

whereby he has confirmed the order of eviction

dated 16.08.2014 passed by the Ld. Rent

Controller, Court N. 1, Shimla in Rent Petition No.

6-2 of 2011 may kindly be set aside in the interest

of law and justice."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present

petition are that the respondents herein filed an eviction petition

under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act against the

present petitioner, i.e. Rent Petition No. 6-2 of 2011, titled as

Rakesh Ahuja vs Arun Kanti Roy, which was allowed by the

learned Rent Controller vide order dated 16th August, 2014, in the

following terms:-

"28. In view of my findings returned on

aforesaid issues, the present petition succeeds and

is allowed and the respondent is ordered to be

evicted from the demised premises, i.e. a set

consisting of one room alongwith kitichen and toilet

in Upper Storey of Kalyan Lodge, Lakkar Bazaar,

Shimla, on the grounds of its having become unsafe

and unfit for human habitation and being bonafide

required by the petitioner for rebuilding and

.

reconstruction. Memo of costs be prepared

accordingly."

3. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against

the order so passed by learned Rent Controller stood dismissed by

the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 17.11.2015,

passed in Rent Appeal No. 5-S/14 of 2015, titled as Shri Arun

Kanti Roy vs. Shri Rakesh Ahuja, in the following terms:-

"32. As a sequent effect, to my finding on points No.

1 to 3 above, the instant appeal being meritless

fails and is hereby dismissed. The finding of

learned Rent Controller are affirmed. Parties to bear

their own costs. Memo of cost be prepared

accordingly. However, the eviction shall be

subjected to the production of sanctioned plan at

the time of execution in view of the latest law laid

down by the Hon'ble High Court, H.P."

4. Today, when this petition was taken up for

consideration, Mr. B.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner submits that the right of re-entry of the petitioner

post reconstruction of the demised premises needs to be protected.

5. Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondent

submits that the respondent-landlord does not disputes said right

.

of the petitioner-tenant but the same, of course, shall be subject to

the readiness and willingness of the petitioner-tenant to pay the

rent at the market rate when the right of re-entry accrues upon

the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-

tenant submits that the petitioner-tenant understands this that

his right of re-entry will, of course, be subject to payment of

prevailing market rent at the relevant time.

7. In view of the respective contentions of learned Counsel

for the parties, these proceedings are ordered to be closed, as

prayed for, by upholding the order/judgment passed by learned

Courts below but subject to the protection of right of re-entry in

favour of the petitioner-tenant, which, of course, will be subject to

readiness and willingness of the petitioner-tenant to pay the rent

at the market rate, which shall be prevailing at the relevant time.

It is made clear that the petitioner-tenant will have the right of re-

entry only qua to the area equivalent to what was in his

possession as a tenant as per record.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of

.

accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                                       (Ajay Mohan Goel)





                                                             Judge
    December 27, 2021
       (narender




                         r         to