1 ( 2025:HHC:19427 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.344 of 2022 Date of Decision : 23.06.2025 Shashi Kumar Sharma …… Petitioner Versus Sunder Singh and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. No notice issued to respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 and 01.04.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.5 of 2020, titled Sunder Singh vs. Delhi Cloth Mills. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the impugned orders. 3. The present respondent is the landlord of the premises in the case at hand. Annexure P-2 appended along-with present petition is the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:19427 ) Eviction Petition filed by the defendant/respondent under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. 4. From perusal of the cause title, it is evident that they are two respondents, namely Delhi Cloth Mills and one Shri Shashi Kumar Sharma. The case of the present respondent before the Rent Controller is that Delhi Cloth Mills Limited was the original tenant and it was having its Unit and commercial establishment at Delhi. The premises was let out to Delhi Cloth Mills Limited for running the shop. The same, it is submitted that has been sub-let to the present petitioner, i.e. Shashi Kumar Sharma. Paragraph-16 of the Rent Petition makes an interesting reading. The relevant extract, whereof, is being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:- “16… … … The petitioner has recently learnt that the entity of respondent No.1 stands abolished or would up in the year 1990-91.” 5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce order dated 26.08.2021. The same is being reproduced here-in-below:- “It is submitted by respondent No.2 that respondent No.1 has been wrongly served through respondent No.1 as respondent No.2 never remained any representative of respondent No.1. The plaintiff is given time to confirm the details of respondent No.1 and again file the particulars for service of respondent No.1 for 15.11.2021.” 6. 6. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondent/landlord had been given time to confirm the details of Delhi Cloth Mills. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Rent Controller on 15.11.2021, 24,02.2022, 3 ( 2025:HHC:19427 ) 07.03.2022 and 01.04.2022. Impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 and 01.04.2022 are being reproduced here-in-below:- “7/3/2022: Let respondent No.1 be served through normal process and affixation on taking steps immediately for 1/4/2022. 1/4/2022: Case called several times since morning, but none has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. It is 3:55 p.m. Cause list for the day stands exhausted. It seems that respondent No.1 is not interested in continuing this case. Hence, he is hereby proceeded against ex parte. Be listed for filing rejoinder on 1/1/2022.” 7. From perusal of the order dated 07.03.2022, it is evident that the respondent/landlord had not complied with order dated 26.08.2021 as till 07.03.2022, no details qua the address of Delhi Cloth Mills had been furnished to the Rent Controller concerned. In the absence of the same, yet again notices were ordered to be served on the address mentioned in the cause title. The address, whereupon respondent No.1 was sought to be served, is being stated here-in-below:- “Delhi Cloth Mills (DCM Retail Store) through its Manager, Sh. Shashi Kumar Sharma.” 8. It is a well settled proposition of law that a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is separate legal entity. Once, the same, as per averments made in the Rent Petition, stands abolished/wound up, one fails to understand as to how the said entity was being sought to be sued and served. Moreso, it is difficult to fathom as to how an entity like Delhi Cloth Mills which is stated to have been abolished/wound up in the year, 1991, was 4 ( 2025:HHC:19427 ) being served in the manner as is being sought to be done in the case at hand by the Rent Controller. 9. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 07.03.2022 and 01.04.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.5 of 2020, titled Sunder Singh vs. Delhi Cloth Mills, are quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated to the stage at which the matter existed as on 26.08.2021. 10. In view of above terms, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 09.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 23, 2025 (KS) Judge