2025:HHC:29415 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.77/2015 Reserved on 26.08.2025 Date of Decision:30.08.2025 Parkash Chand @ Ram Prakash ....Petitioner Versus Ajay Sharma & Anr. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.05.2015, whereby an application filed on behalf of the son of the present petitioner before the learned Rent Controller under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the petition and record. 3. The petitioner, in the case at hand, is the tenant in a landlord tenant dispute under the Rent Control Act. After a protracted trial before the learned Rent Controller, eviction of the petitioner was ordered. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner had filed a reply to the eviction petition, affidavit in his examination-in-chief and had been cross-examined at length before the learned Rent Controller. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:29415 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, an appeal against the eviction was preferred by the present petitioner/tenant. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 32 Rule 15 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed by the son of the present petitioner. In the same, it was averred that the petitioner/tenant was not capable to protect his interest, as he has been suffering from a mental ailment, for which he has been treated in IGMC Shimla, PGIMER Chandigarh as well as in a private hospital in the Department of Psychiatry. Post completion of pleadings in the said application, an order dated 16.12.2014 was passed by the Appellate Authority. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced hereinbelow:- “Along with the application, the applicant has also annexed the documents regarding the treatment of Parkash Chand in IGMC, in PGI Chandigarh as well as in a private hospital. Considering the above documents as well as the averments made by the applicant in the application, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to order for an inquiry by the learned trial Court into the fact whether the appellant/ tenant Parkash Chand was unable of protecting his interest on account of any mental infirmity. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The application along with its supporting documents is ordered to be sent to the learned trial Court with a direction to hold inquiry into the allegations as contained in the application as per the provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of the CPC. The learned trial Court is also directed to conclude the inquiry and decide the application within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the record.” 5. Admittedly, in the case at hand, in terms of order dated 16.12.2014, passed by the First Appellate Court, an inquiry was directed to be conducted with respect to the allegations made in the application under Order 32 Rule 5 CPC qua the alleged 3 2025:HHC:29415 mental infirmity suffered by the present petitioner and as to whether on account of said mental infirmity, the petitioner was not in a position to protect his interest. 6. At the inquiry so ordered, in order to demonstrate the mental infirmity of the petitioner, on account of which it is alleged that the petitioner was not in a position to protect his interest, expert evidence i.e. Doctors examining the petitioner had deposed. 7. I have gone through the statements of AW1-Dr. Jyoti Mehta and AW4-Dr. Dinesh Dutt Sharma. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that the finding of fact recorded at the inquiry, in the case at hand, conducted by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, as the finding returned is on an appropriate consideration of the material evidence and there is no misreading of evidence. 8. It is a well-settled position of law that in a revisional jurisdiction findings of fact recorded by the Court below cannot be interfered with on a reappreciation of evidence merely because the view of the Revisional Court is different from the view taken by the Court below. 9.Other than the aforesaid, from a perusal of the record and the vehemence with which the proceedings have been conducted by the present petitioner before the learned trial Court, as has been recorded in detail in the impugned order passed, besides the fact that the petitioner was conducting his business and operating a bank account, the findings returned qua the mental 4 2025:HHC:29415 health of the petitioner at the inquiry and the fact that on account of the same, the petitioner was capable of protecting his interest, if allowed to stand would not result in gross miscarriage of justice. 10. Besides the aforesaid, the son of the petitioner who filed the application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC did not even come to depose at the inquiry, hence, an adverse inference definitely needs to be drawn against the son of the present petitioner. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 15.09.2025. Registry is directed to send the record back forthwith. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 30th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)