1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 663     OF 2012

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.14051/2011)

KESAR SINGH            Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

PUSHAP LATA & ORS.       Respondent(s)

           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 was rented out to one  

Yash  Paul  Sood  at  a  monthly  rent  of  Rs.100/-  in

2

1962.  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.

3

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.

4

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.