Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 121 (HP)

Ajay Kumar v. Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal

2020-01-10

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - These two revision petitions preferred by tenant and landlord respectively, arising out of one and the same judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, are being disposed of in terms of undertaking of tenant endorsed by respondent No.2 Kuldeep Singh detailed hereinafter. 2. Landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal had filed petition for eviction being Rent Petition No.08/2-2010, titled as Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal vs. Ajay Kumar and another, under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was allowed by learned Rent Controller (2), Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., vide order dated 21.01.2017. 3. Eviction order, passed by Rent Controller, was assailed by tenant-Ajay Kumar before Appellate Authority, by filing Rent Appeal No.04-RA/14 of 2017, titled as Ajay Kumar vs. Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal & another. The said appeal has been partly allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 10.11.2017, whereby eviction on the ground of sub-letting has been set aside and eviction on the basis of bonafide requirement has been maintained. 4. Tenant-Ajay Kumar has assailed the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, by filing Civil Revision No.11 of 2018, whereas, landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal has assailed the said judgment by filing Civil Revision No.50 of 2018. Both the revision petitions have been clubbed together. 5. During pendency of these revision petitions, an application for mesne profits was filed on behalf of landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal and while adjudicating the said application, some offers and counter offers were made by the parties. 6. Tenant-Ajay Kumar had offered to handover the vacant possession of the suit premises within six months, however, the said offer was acceptable to the landlord but with condition that in such eventuality tenant had to pay arrears of rent/use and occupation charges, as claimed by landlord. But it was acceptable to the tenant whereupon landlord had offered to waive of his claim of arrear of rent/use and occupation charges subject to handing over of vacant possession of the premises on or before 31.01.2020. 7. Later on tenant-Ajay Kumar has agreed and has filed affidavit dated 08.01.2020, undertaking therein to remove/shift the wooden structure from the suit premises by 25.01.2020 but he was silent about handing over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal on or before 25.01.2020, free from all encumbrances. 7. Later on tenant-Ajay Kumar has agreed and has filed affidavit dated 08.01.2020, undertaking therein to remove/shift the wooden structure from the suit premises by 25.01.2020 but he was silent about handing over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal on or before 25.01.2020, free from all encumbrances. Therefore, vide order dated 09.01.2020 he as well as respondent No.2 were called upon to file fresh affidavit clearly stating so. 8. Fresh affidavit, in compliance of order passed on 09.01.2020, has been tendered on behalf of tenant-Ajay Kumar through his learned counsel, which has been taken on record. By way of this affidavit, it is undertaken by tenant-Ajay Kumar to remove/shift the wooden structure by 25.01.2020 and to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal on or before 25.01.2020, free from all encumbrances. 9. Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel, representing respondent No.2-Kuldeep Singh, in both the petitions, submits that due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances, neither affidavit could be sworn in by respondent No.2-Kuldeep Singh nor he could come to Shimla to attend the Court. However, he has further submitted that he has instructions to depose on behalf of the said Kuldeep Singh and as per instructions imparted to him, he has deposed that Kuldeep Singh has instructed him to say that respondent No.2 Kuldeep Singh has no right, title or interest of any nature upon said premises and has no objection for handing over of the vacant possession of that premises to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal by tenant-Ajay Kumar on or before 25.01.2020. 10. Thus, in response to the direction issued, respondent No.2-Kuldeep Singh, who was stated to be in possession on account of sub-letting by tenant-Ajay Kumar, has communicated his no objection to handover the suit premises to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal by tenant-Ajay Kumar on 25.01.2020. In fact, no right, title or interest has been claimed by him in the premises in question through his Advocate, who has deposed so. 11. In fact, no right, title or interest has been claimed by him in the premises in question through his Advocate, who has deposed so. 11. In response to the affidavit filed on behalf of tenantAjay Kumar and instructions communicated by and on behalf of Kuldeep Singh and as per instructions received, Mr.Suneet Goel, learned counsel for landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal, has also deposed that landlord has agreed to waive off/forgo his claim with respect to the arrears of rent and/or use and occupation charges from Ajay Kumar and/or Kuldeep Singh subject to handing over of vacant possession of premises to him. 12. Statements of respective learned counsel representing the parties have also recorded separately. 13. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the revision petitions are disposed of as compromised with direction to tenant-Ajay Kumar to handover vacant possession of the premises in question i.e. shop to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal on or before 25.01.2020, with observation that on handing over of the vacant possession on 25.01.2020, landlord shall not be entitled to any arrears of rent and/or use and occupation charges, as claimed by him. It is clarified that on failure to handover vacant possession of the suit premises on or before 25.01.2020, claim of the landlord shall be revived and he shall be entitled to take recourse of all remedies available to him for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. It is further directed that Kuldeep Singh shall not create any hindrance in handing over of the vacant possession of the shop by tenant-Ajay Kumar to landlord-Dushyant Kumar Aggarwal. Tenant-Ajay Kumar is also directed not to cause any damage to the shop/premises in question during removing/shifting of his articles including wooden structure thereon. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.