Kesar Singh Vs. Pushap
Lata & Ors.
[Civil Appeal No. 663
of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.14051/2011]
O R D E R
1.
Delay
condoned. Leave granted.
2.
This
appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2010 passed
by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Civil Revision No.14 of 2001
whereby the revision filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High
Court.
3.
The
appellant herein is the landlord and the respondents are the legal heirs of the
original tenants. The suit premises were rented out to one Yash Paul Sood at a monthly
rent of Rs.100/- in 21962. He sub-let the said premises to one Devinder Singh
S/o Late Shri Sardari Lal. The appellant filed an eviction petition under Section
14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on the ground of subletting. The Trial
Court by its judgment dated 18.5.1998 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant
and directed the respondents to hand over the suit premises to the appellant
within one month from the date of the order.
4.
Aggrieved
by the judgment and order dated 18.5.1998 passed by the Trial Court, the original
tenants filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Shimla. By its Judgment
dated 13th November, 2000, the Appellate Authority holding that the petition
for eviction filed by the appellant was barred by limitation, set aside the judgment
and order passed by the Trial Court and allowed the appeal.
5.
The
appellant thereafter filed a civil revision before the High Court of Himahcal Pradesh
at Shimla. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Appellate Authority and dismissed
the revision. The appellant has approached this Court challenging the judgment
and order passed by the High Court.
6.
We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment
as also the judgments of the Courts below.
7.
In
the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the
High Court committed an error in affirming the order of the Appellate Authority
and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as Articles
66, 67 & 113 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to rent proceedings in
the State of Himachal Pradesh. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is,
therefore, contrary to law and facts and as such liable to be set aside.
8.
Accordingly,
the impugned judgment is set aside, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court
is restored and the appeal is allowed. Parties are directed to bear their
respective costs.
9.
However,
as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondents, two years' time is granted
to the respondents to vacate the premises upon filing usual undertaking in the Registry
of this Court within four weeks from today.
.....................J.
(DALVEER BHANDARI)
.....................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
New
Delhi
January
09, 2012
Back
