Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1031 (HP)

SUBHASH SHARMA v. ANIL KUMAR SOOD

2009-11-11

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2009
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)-This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and order passed by the learned Rent Controller ordering eviction of the petitioner herein on the grounds as urged in the petition. 2. The respondent – landlord instituted petition under the provisions of Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming possession of the premises inter alia on the ground that he was a specified landlord and that he required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation etc. 3. The petitioner herein applied for leave to defend the petition. A perusal of the record of the learned trial Court shows that the application for leave to defend was filed on 24.3.2009 and was taken up thereafter for reply/ rejoinder. On 23.6.2009, arguments were heard on this application. However, without deciding the merits and contentions raised praying for leave to defend, the Court below proceeded to allow the eviction petition ordering eviction of the petitioner herein. 4. The tenant is now in revision against the final order. 5. The Rent Controller was duty bound to have decided the application for leave to defend before proceeding to deal with the petition for eviction on the grounds as urged before him. He could not have adopted a method by deciding the eviction petition straightway without in any manner adverting to and deciding the grounds on the basis of which leave to defend was sought. He was statutorily bound to have come to a conclusion as to whether leave to defend was required to be granted or rejected after consideration of the material on record. This exercise not having been undertaken by the Rent Controller, who only heard arguments on the application and thereafter proceeded to decide the main application on merits, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. The order of the Rent Controller is accordingly quashed and set aside. A direction is issued that he shall hear the parties afresh on the application for leave to defend instituted by the petitioner herein and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the fact that certain documents were filed before the Rent Controller and one of the documents namely, document appearing at Sr. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the fact that certain documents were filed before the Rent Controller and one of the documents namely, document appearing at Sr. No. 4 of the List of Documents filed is not on record of the case. It is a photo copy of the reply dated 29.8.2006. A direction is issued that a copy of this document will be taken on record of the case when filed. Parties shall appear before the learned Rent Controller on 30.11.2009 who shall thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law and with expedition. The Court shall ensure that there are no unnecessary adjournments. The record be sent back to the Court below forthwith. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no -4 order as to costs. Records be sent back immediately.