Thakur Sen Negi vs Sukh Lal Sharma

Sanjay Karol, J.—In this Revision Petition, filed u/s 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, petitioner Shri Thakur Sen Negi, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, has assailed the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 22/2 of 2007/08, titled as Sukh Lal Sharma versus Thakur Sen Negi, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, in terms of its order dated 29.11.2012, passed in Rent Appeal No. 8FTC/14 of 2008, titled as Thakur Sen Negi versus Sukh Lal Sharma. Tenant has been held liable to pay rent to the respondent Shri Sukh Lal Sharma, hereinafter referred to as the landlord, with effect from 1.10.1999 at the rate of Rs. 625/- per month. Operative portion of the order passed by the Rent Controller reads as under:

In view of my findings on issues above, the petition succeeds and respondent is held to be in arrears of rent from 1.10.1999 till date at the rate of Rs. 625/- which comes to Rs. 65,000/-. Therefore, respondent is ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. However, respondent shall not be evicted from the demises premises, if he makes payment of Rs. 65,000/- alongwith interest of 9% per annum to the petitioner within 30 days from today to petitioner. The petition is allowed with cost. Memo of cost be drawn. File after completion be consigned to record room.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of record or illegality or impropriety in the orders in question.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was tenant of Smt. Parwati. It is also not in dispute that after the death of Smt. Parwati, the present landlord filed a petition for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 18.10.1999.

Tenant opposed the petition on the ground that estate of Smt. Parwati devolved upon her adopted son Shri Sukh Dev Sharma, who received the rent from him.

Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the tenant could not establish the factum of adoption of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma, who appeared as RW-2, by Smt. Parwati. I see no error in such findings. Even here, my attention could not be drawn to any material to even prima facie establish this fact.

It is not in dispute that Smt. Parwati had no issue and the present landlord is her nephew in relation. In fact landlord has established the fact that during her life time, Smt. Parwati had executed a gift deed, in relation to the property, in his favour, on the basis of which even entries in the revenue record were effected.

To establish that the tenant paid rent @ Rs. 220/- per month, my attention is invited to the testimony of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma. I do not find the same to be inspiring in confidence at all. It is evident that Shri Sukh Dev is having family relations with the tenant. Also, his statement cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. He had no authority to collect the rent. Despite mutation in favour of the landlord, the tenant did not pay any rent to him. It is also an admitted position that the tenant has not paid any rent to the landlord. The factum of ownership of Shri Sukh Dev Sharma or he being the landlord, cannot be said to have been established by the tenant. Hence, the findings returned by the authorities below, with regard to non-payment of rent cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or contrary to the record. The tenant is in possession of three rooms and two verandahs of the premises, which is situated in the heart of a residential area in Chambaghat, District Solan. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the premises is situated on the National Highway and the rent of Rs. 625/- per month with regard to the same cannot be said to be on the higher side.

As such, the present petition, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.