IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 144 of 2008 Date of decision: 06.12.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Shri Vinod Gambhir son of Shri Matwal Chand r/o Bhatnagar House, Pursarthi Basti, Lower Bazar, Shimla. .....Petitioner. Versus 1. Shri Kailash Behari Bhatnagar son of Shri Brij Behari Lal 2. Shri Kunwar Behari Lal Bhatnagar son of Shri Awadh Behari Lal both r/o 101, Bhatnagar House, Pursarthi Basti, Lower Bazar, Shimla. .....Respondents. Revision petition under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Act, 1987 against the order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the ld. Appellate Authority, Fast Track, Shimla, in rent appeal No. 32-S/14 of 2007 titled Shri Vinod Kumar Versus Shri Kailash Behari and other whereby the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, has upheld the order of eviction dated 23.3.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller(4), Shimla, in Rent case ½ of 2004 titled Shri Kailash Behari and other versus Shri Vinod Kumar and dismissed the appeal filed by the Tenant/petitioner. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The challenge herein in this revision petition under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act') is on behalf of the tenant, who has suffered concurrent findings of fact returned by both the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority, as per the impugned order dated 23.03.2007 and judgment dated 29.04.2008, respectively. 2. The order of eviction was suffered by the tenant on the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... ground that he had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of twelve months without reasonable cause. Though the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 23.03.2007 was assailed before the Appellate Authority on all the grounds available to the tenant, yet at the time of hearing, objection with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties alone was pressed and other issues were not emphasized. 3. The record reveals that relevant averments incorporated by the landlord in para 3(a) and (b) of the eviction petition with regard to particulars of the landlord and the tenant/tenants were not denied by the tenant in his reply, meaning thereby that he admitted that he alone was the tenant in the demised premises and thus he was estopped from taking a contradictory stand by way of preliminary objection No. 3 and para 10 on merits that apart from him his other siblings also fell within the definition of tenant and as they were not impleaded as parties to the eviction petition, the same suffered on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and more so when their names were not disclosed at any stage to the proceedings. 4. In view of the above, I do not see any lawful cause or basis for any interference with the impugned order of eviction as upheld in appeal by the learned Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 6th December, 2011 (virender)