While considering a tenancy dispute matter, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the even if some payments were made by some partnership firm, this would not mean that the said partnership firm automatically stood inducted as a tenant over the suit property.

The High Court was considering a Petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Authorities under the H.P. Public Premises (Land Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, in terms whereof, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was ordered to be evicted from the premises in issue.

The Single Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held, “Further, maybe even if some payments were made by some partnership firm, this does not mean that the said partnership firm automatically stood inducted as a tenant over the suit property. Not only this, it is a matter of record that no evidence was led by the petitioners herein or by their predecessor-in-nterest that there indeed was a partnership firm and that the premises were let out to the said partnership firm. It is also a matter of record that this defence was taken by the petitioners herein after the death of their predecessor-in-interest, who while contesting the proceedings never took this defence. In light of above observations, this Court is of the considered view that in its power of judicial review, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the orders under challenge.”

Advocate Surinder Saklani represented the Petitioner, while Assistant Advocate General Rajat Chauhan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Proceedings in this case were initiated against Keshav Ram Khurana, Proprietor of M/s Himachal Iron Store, Parwanoo, under the H.P. Public Premises (Land Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The Authority held that the tenancy had not terminated in accordance with the law. Feeling aggrieved, the Cooperative Society preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, fresh proceedings were initiated against the Proprietor on the ground that the tenant was not paying rent and further, the premises were required by the Society for its own use.

The Authority, allowed the petition by holding that the petitioner was a registered Society under the relevant statute and was the owner of the property in issue. The Authority further held that the respondent had failed to prove whether there were three partners or not, as alleged. In the meantime, the original respondent died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The representatives filed a petition, and the matter came before the Appellate Authority. The Authority upheld the order asking the predecessor in interest of the appellants to vacate the premises in dispute. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the petitioners could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the Authority that the property/premises were in possession of Keshav Ram Khurana (proprietor) prior to the date of execution of the partnership firm were perverse. “That being the case, obviously, the premises were not let out to the partnership firm but were let out to Keshav Ram Khurana. Therefore, the findings returned to this effect by learned Courts below call for no interference”, it stated.

The Bench further held, “Therefore, as this Court is not exercising the appellate power, it has to respect the findings of fact returned by the learned Authorities below unless some perversity is demonstrated therein”. As per the Bench, since the petitioner had not been able to demonstrate any perversity in the impugned order and their basic contention that the property was let out to the partnership firm was not substantiated by any cogent evidence, the findings returned by the Authorities below called for no interference.

The Bench found no force in the contention of the petitioner’s Counsel that the factum of the property being let out to the partnership firm was borne out from the statement of the witnesses of the Society. “Their statement cannot be read in the mode and manner in which the petitioner wants them to be read. It was the allegation of the petitioners that the property was let out to the partnership firm and incidentally as the petitioners happen to be the alleged partners of the firm, the onus was upon them to have proved this fact, which they miserably failed to prove”, it added.

Finding no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Sudershan v. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:33312)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Surinder Saklani

Respondent: Assistant Advocate General Rajat Chauhan, Senior Advocate Bhupender Gupta, Advocate Janesh Gupta

Click here to read/download Order


Himachal Pradesh High CourtJustice Ajay Mohan Goel

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.