Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1547 (HP)

Parkash Chand son of Jagan Nath v. Ajay Sharma

2015-10-16

P.S.RANA

body2015
JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana Judge. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Sh. Ajay Sharma landlord filed petition under Section 14 of H.P Urban Rent Control Act 1987 before learned Rent Controller Court No.2 against tenants. Learned Rent Controller passed eviction order against tenants on dated 31.5.2012 in R.C. No. 1-2 of 2009 titled Sh Ajay Sharma Vs. Parkash Chand and another on following grounds (1) Arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.30,714.81/- w.e.f. 1994 till date. (2) That building in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. (3) That suit premises is bonafidely required for rebuilding and reconstruction which cannot be done without vacating the premises. 2. Thereafter tenants filed appeal under Section 24 of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against eviction order which is pending before learned District Judge Shimla exercising the power of appellate authority under HP Urban Rent Control Act as of today for disposal. During the pendency of first appeal before appellate authority Shimla HP application under Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and learned appellate authority directed learned Rent Controller to hold inquiry into the allegations as contained in the application as per provision of Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 151 CPC relating to Parkash Chand. Thereafter learned Rent Controller conducted inquiry under Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned Rent Controller held on dated 29.5.2015 that though Parkash Chand revisionist may be suffering from mental illness but there is no material on record to hold that he was incapacitated to protect his interest because of his mental illness. Learned Rent Controller (2) Shimla held that there is no necessity to appoint guardian ad-litem of Parkash Chand. Inquiry report submitted by learned Rent Controller is challenged before High Court of HP by way of present revision petition. Enquiry report submitted by learned Rent Controller to appellate authority i.e. learned District Judge Shimla HP is listed for consideration before learned District Judge Shimla HP. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.1. Court also perused entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present interim order. (1) Whether Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath proforma co-revisionist No.2 should be served as per Order XXX Rule 3 CPC in civil revision No.77 of 2015 titled Parkash Chand Vs. Court also perused entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present interim order. (1) Whether Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath proforma co-revisionist No.2 should be served as per Order XXX Rule 3 CPC in civil revision No.77 of 2015 titled Parkash Chand Vs. Ajay Sharma or in alternative by way of affixation? (2) Final order. Reasons for findings upon Point No.1. 5. Before learned Rent Controller non-revisionist No.2 Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath was served through Sh Parkash Chand @ Ram Parkash. Even before appellate authority i.e. District Judge Shimla H.P Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath was impleaded as coappellant through Sh Parkash Chand son of Sh. Jagan Nath. Thereafter when revision petition was filed before High Court Sh Parkash Chand @ Ram Parkash was impleaded through his son Sh Raman Shandil resident of 4/4 Prime Rose Cart Road Shimla with the allegation that Sh Parkash Chand @ Ram Parkash is suffering from mental illness. Till date Court has not declared Sh Parkash Chand @ Ram Parkash as person of unsound mind. It is held that party cannot declare a person as unsound mind during pendency of case suo moto without permission of Court when matter of unsound mind of Sh. Parkash Chand is lis pendens before competent authority of law. Court is of the opinion that in present civil revision Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath has been impleaded as proforma non-revisionist No.2 in the capacity of firm. It is well settled law that Messrs is plural of Mr. It is ordered that Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath proforma non-revisionist No.2 in present civil revision No. 77 of 2015 will be served as per order XXX rule 3 CPC 1908 and in alternative will be served by way of affixation. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Final order). 6. Service upon Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath proforma non-revisionist No.2 will be effected in the following manners under order XXX rule 3 CPC. (1) Upon any one or more of the partners or at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on within India upon any person having at the time of service the control or management of partnership business there. Service of proforma non-revisionist No.2 Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath Top Floor, Fay Lodge Cart Road Shimla (H.P) will be effected for 16.10.2015. Service of proforma non-revisionist No.2 Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath Top Floor, Fay Lodge Cart Road Shimla (H.P) will be effected for 16.10.2015. If the service upon proforma non-revisionist No.2 i.e. Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath will not be effected as per order XXX rule 3 CPC then in alternative service upon proforma non-revisionist No.2 i.e. Messrs Harlal Jagan Nath will be effected by way of affixation strictly in accordance with law. Be listed on 16.10.2015.