KESAR SINGH Vs PUSHAP LATA .
Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-000663-000663 / 2012
Diary number: 12305 / 2011
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.