Kesar Singh vs Pushap Lata & Ors

2. This appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil

Revision No.14 of 2001 whereby the revision filed by

the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.

3. The appellant herein is the landlord and the

respondents are the legal heirs of the original

tenants. The suit premises was rented out to one

Yash Paul Sood at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- in

2

1962. He sub-let the said premises to one Devinder

Singh S/o Late Shri Sardari Lal. The appellant filed

an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P.

Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on the ground of

subletting. The Trial Court by its judgment dated

18.5.1998 decreed the suit in favour of the

appellant and directed the respondents to hand over

the suit premises to the appellant within one month

from the date of the order.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

18.5.1998 passed by the Trial Court, the original

tenants filed an appeal before the Appellate

Authority, Shimla. By its Judgment dated 13th

November, 2000, the Appellate Authority holding that

the petition for eviction filed by the appellant was

barred by limitation, set aside the judgment and

order passed by the Trial Court and allowed the

appeal.

5. The appellant thereafter filed a civil

revision before the High Court of Himahcal Pradesh

at Shimla. The High Court upheld the judgment of the

Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision.

3

The appellant has approached this Court challenging

the judgment and order passed by the High Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and have perused the impugned judgment as

also the judgments of the Courts below.

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case,

we are of the considered view that the High Court

committed an error in affirming the order of the

Appellate Authority and setting aside the judgment

and order passed by the Trial Court as Articles 66,

67 & 113 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to

rent proceedings in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is,

therefore, contrary to law and facts and as such

liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set

aside, the judgment and order passed by the Trial

Court is restored and the appeal is allowed. Parties

are directed to bear their respective costs.

4

9. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel

for the respondents, two years' time is granted to

the respondents to vacate the premises upon filing

usual undertaking in the Registry of this Court

within four weeks from today.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DIPAK MISRA) New Delhi;

January 09, 2012.