Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On:07.04.2025 vs Rajesh Madan & Others on 2 May, 2025
2025:HHC:12246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No.102 of 2022
Reserved on:07.04.2025
Decided on: 02.05.2025
Rajinder Singh ….Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Madan & others …Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. B.B. Vaid and Mr. Hemant Vaid,
Advocates.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
The instant petition has been filed against order
dated 09.06.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller,
Shimla, in Case No. CIS 4 of 2022, whereby the objections of
the petitioner herein under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short, “the Code”) along with application
under Order 14 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code have been
dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of this
petition are as under:
2
(i) Respondent No.1 Rajesh Madan is the landlord
in respect of residential premises known as House No.
82/3 Top Floor, Ganj Road, Shimla (hereinafter
referred to as “the premises”). The premises was
under the tenancy of Gian Singh even before the
purchase of premises by the landlord.
(ii) Gian Singh died and was survived by his wife
Balwant Kaur, Sons Rajinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh
and Joginder Singh (now deceased).
(iii) After death of Gian Singh, the landlord filed a
petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control
Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) for eviction from the
premises against Balwant Kaur on the grounds firstly,
that the building had become unfit and unsafe for
human habitation and secondly, the landlord required
the premises bonafide for the purposes of rebuilding
and reconstruction which could not be done without
vacation of the premises.
(iv) Smt. Balwant Kaur contested the petition by
denying the averments made therein. She raised a
specific plea that the sons of late Shri Gian Singh had
3also inherited the tenancy rights in the premises along
with her as they were ordinarily residing with Shri Gian
Singh in the premises at the time of his death.
3. Learned Rent Controller framed the following
issues:
“1. Whether the suit premises has become unfit and
unsafe for human habitation as alleged? OPA
2. Whether bonafide applicant suit the required for
premises is by the building, rebuilding and
construction work as claimed? OPA
3. Whether the application is not maintainable as
alleged? OPR
4. Whether the applicant is estopped from filing the
petition alleged? OPR
5. Relief.”
4. Only issue No.2 was answered in affirmative and
the petition was allowed on the ground that the landlord
required the premises bonafide for the purposes of rebuilding
and reconstruction, which was not possible without vacation
of premises.
5. Smt. Balwant Kaur assailed the order of eviction
dated 02.07.2009 by filing an appeal under Section 24 of the
Act before the Appellate Authority, Shimla, which came to be
registered as Rent Appeal No.47-S/14 of 2009. Smt. Balwant
Kaur died during the pendency of appeal. The factum of
4
death of Smt. Balwant Kaur was not brought to the notice of
learned Appellate Authority and accordingly Rent Appeal
No.47-S/14 of 2009 came to be decided vide judgment dated
24.02.2010. The appeal was dismissed and order passed by
learned Rent Controller was affirmed.
6. The landlord preferred execution petition for the
execution of order dated 02.07.2009 passed by learned Rent
Controller in Rent Petition No.25-2 of 2006. He impleaded
Balwant Kaur (deceased) through her sons Joginder Singh,
Rajinder Singh and Gurbachan Singh as respondents. The
execution petition was registered as Execution Petition
No.31-10 of 2010.
7. One of the sons of late Shri Gian Singh named
Rajinder Singh (petitioner herein) filed objections under
Section 47 of the Code. The objections were dismissed. The
order of dismissal of objections passed by the executing
Court was assailed by Rajinder Singh by filing Civil Revision
No.4066 of 2013 in this Court.
8. Rajinder Singh filed another Civil Revision
Petition being CR No.26 of 2014 in this Court assailing
5
judgment dated 24.02.2010, passed by the Appellate
Authority, Shimla in Rent Appeal No.47-S/14 of 2009.
9. Civil Revision No.26 of 2014 was decided by a
co-ordinate bench of this Court on 04.04.2018. The judgment
dated 24.02.2010 passed by Appellate Authority was set
aside having been passed against a dead person. Rajinder
Singh was granted liberty to move appropriate application
before the appellate Authority to pursue the surviving cause
in the appeal.
10. Civil Revision No.4066 of 2013 was also decided
by the same co-ordinate bench of this Court on the same day
i.e. 04.04.2018. Orders passed by the executing Court, as
impugned in the said revision petition were set aside. The
matter was remanded to the Executing Court with liberty to
the landlord to move appropriate application before the said
Court after the decision on appeal by the Appellate Authority.
The executing Court was further directed to invite objections
afresh, if required, depending upon the adjudication made by
the Appellate Court.
11. In sequel to order dated 4.4.2018 passed in Civil
Revision 26 of 2014, Rajinder Singh filed three separate
6
applications before the Appellate Authority. An application
was filed under Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 read with Section
151 of the Code and the other application was filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay
in filing the former application. The third application was filed
under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code.
12. Rajinder Singh by way of above applications had
asserted right of tenancy along with other sons of Shri Gian
Singh in addition to the right so inherited by Balwant Kaur.
For seeking condonation of delay in filing application under
Order 22 of the Code, it was submitted that said Rajinder
Singh was not aware about the pendency of proceedings.
13. The appellate Authority, Shimla decided the
aforesaid applications vide order dated 18.12.2018. As
regards the status of Rajinder Singh and others sons of Gian
Singh, learned appellate Authority held as under:
“16. Now applying the ratio of the above authority
to the facts of the present case, it becomes clear that
on the death of the original tenant Sh. Gian Singh, the
tenancy rights over the demised premises was
inherited not only by his wife Smt. Balwant Kaur, but
also by his sons simultaneously namely applicant Sh.
Rajinder Singh, proforma respondent No.2 Sh.
7
Gurbachan Singh (now deceased) another son Sh.
Gian Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the proforma
respondents No.3 to 5 and the eviction petition was
maintainable against Smt. Balwant Kaur widow of
original tenant Sh. Gian Singh even other co-heirs
were not arrayed as respondents in that petition and
the eviction petition was binding upon not only against
Smt. Balwant Kaur, but also against other co-heirs
(applicant Sh. Rajinder Singh, proforma respondent
No.2 Sh. Gurbachan Singh (now deceased) another
son Sh. Gian Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the
contention raised by learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant that the eviction petition was not
maintainable as other co-heirs were not made party to
the petition by the respondent/landlord and also of
learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that the
tenancy rights can be inherited once by the widow of
the original tenant, then the same cannot be inherited
by his sons, cannot be accepted.”
14. The applications for condonation of delay,
impleadment of legal representatives and addition of parties
were dismissed primarily on the ground that Rajinder Singh
throughout had the knowledge of the pendency of eviction
proceedings. It was noticed that Rajinder Singh had
appeared as a witness in Rent Case No.25-2 of 2006 before
the learned Rent Controller.
8
15. Rajinder Singh assailed order darted 18.12.2018
passed by the Appellate Authority before this Court by
invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The petition came to be registered as
CMPMO No.31 of 2019. A co-ordinate bench of this Court
vide order dated 30.12.2019 dismissed the petition and
affirmed the order passed by the appellate Authority.
16. The landlord had not assailed the findings
recorded by the learned appellate Authority as to the status
of Rajinder Singh and other sons of Shri Gian Singh as
tenants in the premises, therefore, such findings have
attained finality as against the landlord.
17. Thereafter, the landlord filed application before
the executing Court with a prayer to be put in possession of
the premises.
18. Rajinder Singh filed fresh objections under
Section 47 of the Code as under:
(a) That the execution petition preferred by
landlord against the legal representatives of late
Smt. Balwant Kaur was neither competent nor
maintainable. The objector and other sons of
9Gian Singh were ordinarily residing with Gian
Singh at the time of his death and therefore, as
per section 2(j) of the Act, all of them had
inherited the tenancy rights in the premises
alongwith Balwant Kaur. Since the objector and
other sons of Gian Singh were not made party in
the eviction petition, the order of eviction could
not be executed against the objector and the
objector could not be condemned unheard.
(b) The order passed by the learned Rent
Controller was in-executable in view of the fact
that Rajinder Singh was a necessary party in the
main petition and eviction petition could not have
been filed without arraying Rajinder Singh and
other sons of deceased Shri Gian Singh as party
to the proceedings.
(c) The order of eviction had been obtained by
landlord by playing fraud on the Court as he had
intentionally and deliberately failed to array all the
tenants as parties. The landlord was also
occupying a non-residential premises besides a
10residential premises in the same building and to
say that the building had become unfit and
unsafe was a fallacy. The landlord also did not
possess a valid sanction for reconstruction of the
building from local authority. The reconstruction
was also not possible on account of ban imposed
by the orders of National Green Tribunal.
(d) After the amendment in the Act w.e.f.
16.03.2012 right of re-entry has been provided to
the tenants.
(e) That Smt. Balwant Kaur was infirm
and incapable of protecting her rights during the
pendency of eviction proceedings and no steps
had been take as per provisions of order 32 Rule
15 of the Code for appointment of guardian.
19. The executing Court has held that there was no
requirement of framing issues and the objections could be
decided without framing of issues.
20. While deciding the objections of Rajinder Singh
learned Executing Court vide order dated 09.06.2022, which
11
is impugned in the instant Revision Petition, has held as
under:
(a) The executing Court could not go behind the
decree.
(b) As per settled proposition of law all the legal
heirs of original tenant succeeded to his tenancy on
his death as joint tenants. In this view of the matter,
the service of notice on one was to be deemed as
notice to all.
(c) The eviction order obtained by the landlord is
binding on all the legal heirs of deceased.
(d) As regards the right of re entry available to the
petitioner and other joint tenants, it has been held
that such right was available on new terms of tenancy
on the basis of mutual agreement between him and
the landlord in the built-up area equivalent to the
original premises/ demised premises as per law.
(e) The landlord shall reconstruct/rebuild the
premises within shortest possible time after due
permission and re-induct tenant on new terms as per
law.
12
(f) The objections as to infirmity of Smt. Balwant
Kaur has also been rejected by holding that there
was no sufficient material on record to warrant
appointment of guardian under Order 32 of the Code.
21. As noticed above, learned appellate Authority has
recorded a specific finding that in addition to Balwant Kaur,
Rajinder Singh and others sons of Gian Singh had also
inherited the tenancy rights in the premises. It was, however,
held that since they were joint tenants, an order of eviction
against one was binding on the others.
22. The landlord has accepted the aforesaid verdict.
23. I have heard Shri G.C. Gupta learned Senior
Advocate with Shri Deepak Gupta Advocate for the petitioner
and Shri Bharat Bhushan Vaid alongwith Shri Hemant Vaid
Advocates learned counsel for the respondent/landlord and
have also gone through the records of the case.
24. It has been contended for the petitioner that there
was no adjudication on the issue as to which of the legal
heirs of Gian Singh had inherited the tenancy rights in the
premises after his death. Since, the petitioner and other sons
of Gian Singh besides Balwant Kaur were also ordinarily
13
residing in the premises with Gian Singh at the time of his
death, they had also inherited the tenancy rights. Another
contention as has been raised is that the earlier objections
filed in Execution Petition No. 31-10 of 2010 remained
undecided as there was no reference to such objections in
the impugned order. The impugned order has also been
alleged to be not sustainable in light of Section 50 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. It is further asserted that in case the
landlord did not admit the petitioner and other sons of Gian
Singh to have inherited tenancy rights in the premises, they
being in possession of premises could not be dispossessed
without obtaining a decree from the Civil Court. Another
objection raised is that one of the sons of Gian Singh has
died after passing of eviction order and his legal
representatives have not been brought on record.
25. On the other hand, during course of hearing Shri
Hemant Vaid learned Counsel for landlord/ respondent fairly
pointed out the findings recorded by learned Appellate
Authority, Shimla vide its order dated 18.12.2018 passed in
Rent Appeal 47-S/14 of 2009 as reproduced in para 13
hereinabove.
14
26. Thus, to say that there has been no adjudication
on the issue will not be correct. Though collaterally, there is
an adjudication on the fact that the petitioner herein and all
other sons of Gian Singh had inherited the tenancy rights in
the premises. The landlord has not assailed such findings at
any stage. In addition, the learned Executing Court has also
held so vide impugned order, as noticed, above. Again, the
landlord has not assailed the impugned order.
27. Thus, it stands established that the landlord by
implication has admitted the above fact.
28. Once the petitioner and other sons of Gian Singh
become holders of tenancy rights in the premises, the
question arises whether without impleading them as parties
in the original eviction proceedings, the order of eviction can
be executed against them?
29. The legal position is clear. In Suresh Kumar
Kohli Vs Rakesh Jain and another (2018) 6 SCC 708,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“24. We are of the view that in the light
of H.C.Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77,
the situation is very clear that when original
tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as
15joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenants
is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not
necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs
of the deceased tenant, whether they are
occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for
the landlord to implead either of those persons
who are occupying the property, as party. There
may be a case where landlord is not aware of all
the legal heirs of deceased tenant and
impleading only those heirs who are in
occupation of the property is sufficient for the
purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction
petition against one of the joint tenants is
sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint
tenants are bound by the order of the Rent
Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is
not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus,
the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.”
30. In light of above exposition there is no hesitation
to hold that in the instant case also the order of eviction
dated 2.7.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in
Rent Case No. 25-2 of 2006 though passed against Balwant
Kaur binds the petitioner and other sons of Gian Singh. It
also cannot be ignored that the petitioner herein though
appeared as a witness before learned Rent Controller in
16
Rent Case No. 25-2 of 2006, he did not come forward during
entire length of proceedings before learned Rent Controller
for his impleadment as party.
31. The Act has been amended by amendment Act 8
of 2012. A proviso has been added to Section 14 (3)(c) as
under:
“Provided that the tenant evicted under this
clause shall have a right to re-entry on new terms
of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement
between the landlord and the tenant, to the
premises in the re-built building equivalent in
area to the original premises for which he was a
tenant”
32. At this stage it will be relevant to notice that the
vires of certain provisions of the Act as also the amendment
Act 8 of 2012 were challenged before this Court by way of
CWP No. 2072/1995, CWP No. 297/2001 and CWP No.
3165/2013 titled Chaman Lal Bali Versus State of Himachal
Pradesh and another; Chandan Mehta Versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and others and Sumeer Nath Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another respectively.
17
Challenge was also laid to the amendment made to section
14(3)(c) of the Act, as noticed above.
33. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment
dated 2.8.2016 passed in above noted Civil Writ Petitions
though upheld the right of re-entry granted to the tenant, but
in the final analysis held as under :
99. In such circumstances, therefore, the further question
that arises for consideration as to whether the existing
provision of Section 14(3) (c) is constitutionally valid?
100. We have no hesitation in observing that in absence
of any time frame for putting the tenant back into
possession, the landlord after evicting the tenant on the
ground mentioned in Section 14(3)(c) may chose to keep
the building as it is for some period in order to fetch a
substantial amount in sale and in this manner the
provision affords no safeguard to the evicted tenant.
101. That apart, the legislature by introducing the right of
reentry on new terms of tenancy, that too, only on the
basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and
tenant, has virtually rendered the right of re-entry
illusionary and the provision otiose, as it is difficult to
comprehend, contemplate and visualize that the tenant
and landlord, who have been involved in litigation for
decades and would otherwise normally not see each
other in eye, would subsequently all of a sudden arrive at
a mutual agreement. What if, the landlord and tenant fail
to arrive at a mutual agreement? There is absolutely no
answer to this question to be found in the entire Amended
Act.
18
102. Even otherwise, there being a mutual agreement
between the landlord and tenant is a nigh impossibility,
after all the landlord who has succeeded in having his
tenant evicted, that too, invariably after long drawn battle
in the Courts, would not at all like to arrive at a “mutual
agreement” with the tenant and on the other hand why
would the tenant, who has been conferred with the right
of re-entry succumb to any unreasonable demands of the
landlord so as to arrive at a mutual agreement ?
103. In addition to the aforesaid, we find that the
provisions are neither in the interest of the landlord or
tenant because in case the parties fail to enter into a
mutual agreement regarding the new terms of tenancy,
neither the landlord nor the tenant would be able to utilize
reconstructed premises, despite the landlord having spent
a huge amount for rebuilding the same. This obviously
would only promote perpetual and endless litigation
between the parties and the very object of the Amending
Act of promoting harmonious relations between the
landlords and the tenants would thus stand defeated.
104. Lastly, we also notice that the language used in
explanation is absolutely vague and it is not at all
discernible as to in what time would the agreement as
mentioned therein be arrived at. Is it when the tenant has
been evicted under clause (c) or at the time when the
building is rebuilt? In case, the agreement is to be arrived
at the time of eviction, then probably much exception
cannot be taken, but in case the agreement is to be
arrived at only after the building is rebuilt, then the very
purpose of having such a provision of re-induction of the
tenant would be rendered nugatory and otiose, because
the landlord will make all endeavours to drive the tenant
19to the wall and would further ensure that the portion for
which the re-entry has been reserved to the tenant is not
constructed. The proviso to say the least is totally
unworkable as it is absolutely vague, ambiguous apart
from being arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, we
have no difficulty in concluding that the first proviso of
clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act is
unconstitutional.
105. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the
reasons so stated, these petitions are partly allowed and
Section 4 of the Amended Act which prescribes the
procedure for determination of standard rent and Sections
5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 (2) insofar as they are dependent upon
standard rent as contemplated and determined under
Section 4 other than the agreed rent are struck down and
declared unconstitutional. Similarly, Section 14 (3) (c) of
the Act insofar as it provides for the right of re-entry to the
tenant is upheld, while the remaining portion of the
proviso being unreasonable, is also struck down and
declared unconstitutional.
34. Before passing of above noticed judgment the
field was held by judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of
this Court in M/S R.S. Puran Mull Trust Vs M/S Dayal Sons
reported in Latest HLJ 2013(HP) 1277 in which it was
observed and held as under:
54. While permitting/allowing rebuilding, the learned Rent
Controller/Appellate Authority shall fix a time within which
the construction has to be commenced and completed by
the landlord. The tenant must vacate the premises in
20order to enable the landlord to carryout construction, as
ordered by the learned Rent Controller/Appellate
Authority. The terms and conditions of tenancy more or
less should be on the old terms of tenancy, except
increase in rent, which is to be determined as per the law
laid by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
2004 (4) SCC 781. The tenancy will be deemed to have
been temporarily suspended and not terminated. Since
right of tenant of re-entry has been provided now under
the proviso. Re-induction of the tenant should be on the
same dimensions as per old tenancy and the location and
the place should also be same. It is clarified that in case
the premises are commercial and are on the main bazaar,
the tenant cannot be shifted to first floor or second floor.
In the eventuality of the premises not handed over by the
landlord to the tenant, the tenant will be held entitled to
reasonable compensation to be determined by the
learned Rent Controller, which should neither be
exorbitant nor on the lower side.
58. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis
made hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed. The
judgment, dated 17.01.2006, passed by the learned
Appellate Authority, Shimla, is set aside and the order,
dated 01.08.2003, passed by the learned Rent Controller
(1), Shimla, is modified as under:
“The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant
possession of the premises to the landlord within a
period of three months. Thereafter, the landlord
shall commence the construction within a period of
six months and complete the same within a further
period of one year after obtaining the statutory
permissions. The tenant shall be re-inducted on
21the basis of the observations made hereinabove
after one month of the construction of the building.
The tenant should be re-inducted in the same
place, location and area should be equivalent to
the area which was in occupation of the tenant
before the orders passed by the learned Rent
Controller.”
35. The judgment dated 2.8.2016 passed by Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in Chaman Lal Bali (supra) has
been challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh before
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) Diary No.
47268/2018 and vide order dated 18.2.2019 the said
judgment has been stayed.
36. Though in Chaman Lal Bali (supra) the Hon’ble
Division Bench has overruled the judgment passed in M/S
R.S. Puran Mull Trust to a limited extent by holding as under:
98. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in M/s R.S. Puran Mull Trust
(supra), giving time bound directions to the parties i.e.
landlord and tenant and further holding the tenants to be
entitled to reasonable compensation on failure of the
landlord to hand over possession of the premises,
dehorse the provisions of the statute by applying the
doctrine of casus omissus cannot be regarded and
considered as good law and to that extent the same is,
therefore, overruled.
22
However, since, the judgment in Chaman Lal Bali has been
stayed, the judgment in M/S R.S. Puran Mull Trust will have
application.
37. Learned counsel for landlord/respondent also
raised an argument that the eviction order in the instant case
stood passed before coming into force of amendment act
and hence, its provisions could not be applied
retrospectively. The argument so raised deserves to be
rejected by implication of Section 34 of the Act, the
amendment will apply to the facts of the case as Section 34
reads as under:
“34. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Himachal
Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, (23 of 1971)
is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but subject to the
provisions contained in sub-section (3), all suits,
appeals and other proceedings, including execution
proceedings, under the said Act, pending before any
court of appellate or revisional authority, on the
appointed day shall be disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of this Act, as if the provisions
contained in this Act were, at the relevant time, in
force.
(3) Nothing contained herein shall authorise any
court or authority or tribunal to re-open any suit or
23proceedings in which the orders passed have already
become final and executed.
Admittedly, the statutory appeal of the tenant came to be
finally decided by order dated 18.12.2018 i.e. after the
amendment in the Act and the execution petition was
decided finally on 9.6.2022.
38. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma vs.
Vikas Sood and others (2013) 5 SCC 243 has applied the
amended provision of the Act granting right of re-entry to the
tenant retrospectively by holding as under:
“19. We accordingly, allow the appeals, set-aside
the directions contained in para 27 of the
impugned judgment of the High Court, but grant
time to the respondents to vacate the building
within three months from today. We make it clear
that it will be open for the respondents to apply
for re-entry into the building in accordance with
the proviso to clause (c) of Section 14 (3) of the
Act introduced by the Amendment Act, 2009.
Considering, however, the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the cases, there shall be no
order as to costs.”
39. In light of what has been held above other
contentions raised on behalf of petitioner need not be
24
answered save and except that Section 50 of the Code of
Civil Procedure has no application in the facts of the case
and the inheritance of tenancy under the Act is only once,
therefore, after the Sons of Gian Singh no one is entitled to
inherit the same.
40. Though the executing court vide impugned order
has upheld the right of petitioner and other sons of the Gian
Singh to re-entry in terms of amendment, as above noted,
but in my considered view everything has been left in limbo
when the learned Executing Court has held that the landlord
shall reconstruct/rebuild the premises within shortest
possible time after due permission and re-induct tenant on
new terms as per law. With the nature of directions as
contained in impugned order the eviction order passed by
learned Rent controller is more likely than not to face
impasses and thereby rendering the purpose of the Act
nugatory.
41. In result, the impugned order dated 9.6.2022
passed by learned Rent Controller Shimla in Execution
Petition No. 31-10 of 2010 is set aside to the extent as
having been passed without useful directions as to carrying
25
out the purpose of proviso added to Section 14(3)(c) of the
H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The matter is remanded
back to learned Executing Court with direction to the said
Court to pass the orders afresh strictly in terms of what has
been held hereinabove and taking into consideration the
dictum in M/S R.S. Puran Mull Trust Vs M/S Dayal Sons
reported in Latest HLJ 2013(HP) 1277.
42. The petition is accordingly disposed of so also all
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
43. Record be sent back immediately.
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
May 02, 2025
(vt)
[ad_1]
Source link