AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vivek Singh Thakur, J
In present case, Rent Controller-1, Kanga, H.P. had passed eviction order against petitioners herein, directing them to pay arrears of rent along with interest till passing of the order/judgment with further direction to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents, petitioners herein, within a period of 30 days from passing of order, with further observation that failing in compliance, petitioners therein shall be entitled to seek eviction of respondents therein, in accordance with law.
Aforesaid eviction order has been passed consequent to findings returned by Rent Controller with respect to issues No. 1 and 2, whereby it was held that respondents (petitioners herein) are in arrears of rent and suit premises is bonafide required by petitioners for re-building.
Petitioners herein had preferred appeal against the aforesaid order/judgment before Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 1.9.2015. During pendency of the said appeal petitioners had filed an application for interim stay with respect to execution and operation of judgment passed by Rent Controller, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2019 by Appellate Authority, on the ground that petitioners had failed to deposit the arrears of rent within 30 days.
On 10.9.2020, learned counsel for respondents has pointed out that eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller on two counts and even if, it is presumed that eviction order on account of bonafide required may be interfered in this Revision Petition, then also for non deposit of arrears of rent within the time prescribed under the Statute, eviction order shall sustain on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to hear this Revision for determining the issue with respect to bonafide requirement of the landlord.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners, had sought time to have complete and current instructions. Today he has submitted that despite making all out efforts, petitioners have not responded on this count.
I am of the considered view that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, nothing survives to be adjudicated in this Revision Petition and accordingly Revision Petition is dismissed and the order dated 1.9.2015 passed by learned Appellate Authority-II, Kangra in Rent appeal No. 4-D/14/09, titled Mahadev (deceased) through his Lrs Vs. Smt. Sudha Devi (deceased) through her Lrs is upheld, whereby order dated 9.5.2008 passed by Rent controller (1) Kangra in Rent Petition No. 5/04, titled as Smt. Sudha (deceased) through LRs and another Vs. Mahadev has been affirmed. No orders as to costs.