1 ( 2025:HHC:20724 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.63 of 2018 a/w Civil Revision No.137 of 2018 Date of Decision : 01.07.2025 Civil Revision No.63 of 2018 Ashok Kumar Sahni Versus …… Petitioner Arvind Kumar Sood ……Respondent Civil Revision No.137 of 2018 Arvind Kumar Sood …… Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar Sahni ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Civil Revision No.63 of 2018 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate. Civil Revision No.137 of 2018 For the Petitioner : Mr.Vipin Pandit, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The petitioner in Civil Revision No.63 of 2018 is the tenant before the Rent Controller. Eviction petition had been filed by the present respondent against the petitioner on the ground that the demise premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Other than the aforesaid, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20724 ) eviction was being sought on the ground of bona fide need of the family members of the present respondent. Last but not least, eviction was sought on the ground that the demised premises are required for re-construction. 2. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground that the demised premises in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and also on account of the fact that the demises premises was required for re-construction. Insofar as bona fide need of the family members of the respondent/landlord was concerned, the petition was dismissed. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, both the landlord and the tenant preferred two separate appeals laying challenge to the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2016, passed by the Rent Controller. Both the appeals preferred by the landlord and the tenant were dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2017. 4. Yet again, two revision petitions being Civil Revision No.63 of 2018 and Civil Revision No.137 of 2018 were preferred against the aforesaid two impugned judgments. Civil Revision No.63 of 2018 was preferred by the tenant and Civil Revision No.137 of 2018 was preferred by the landlord. 5. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw Revision Petition No.63 of 2018. Permission allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the tenant is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, judgment of eviction by the Rent Controller, on 19.11.2016 has been passed in favour of the landlord who has preferred Civil Revision No.137 of 2018. The appeal preferred against the judgment dated 19.11.2016, passed by the Rent Controller, by 3 ( 2025:HHC:20724 ) both the landlord and the tenant have been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2017. The judgment passed by both the Courts below have partly allowed the Rent Petitions filed by the landlord. Insofar as the ground of bona fide requirement of the family members of the landlord is concerned, a finding therein has been recorded against the landlord. Meaning thereby that the landlord has secured the relief of eviction sought for, though findings on bona fide requirement of the landlord’s family, have been returned against the landlord. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nalakath Sainuddin vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman, 2006(2) SCC 1, Revision Petition filed by the landlord, is not maintainable, as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the landlord cannot be termed to a person aggrieved by the impugned judgments, wherein though the final relief as is being sought has been granted, but certain adverse findings against the landlord have been recorded. The relevant extract is being reproduced herein below:- 17. We agree with the view taken by the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Madras. We are of the opinion that __ (i) There is no reason to read and interpret Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 narrowly and limit the scope of revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court thereby; (ii) Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, whichever be the party invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court acquires jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the authority subordinate to it. The records relating to 'any order' and/or any proceedings, are available to be examined by the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the (a) legality, (b) regularity, or 4 ( 2025:HHC:20724 ) (c) propriety of the impugned order, including any part of the order, or proceedings. The only limitation on the scope of High Court's jurisdiction is that the order or proceedings sought to be scrutinized must be of the subordinate authority. Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by the High Court by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law requires and justice demands; (iii) 'Any aggrieved party', the expression employed in Section 20(1), means a person feeling aggrieved by the ultimate decision, that is, the operative part of the order. A party to the proceedings, who has succeeded in securing the relief prayed for, is not a party aggrieved though the order contains a finding or two adverse to him. The respondent can support the order and pray for the ultimate decision being sustained, without filing a revision of his own, and for achieving such end he may seek reversal of any findings recorded against him. However, if the non- petitioning party feels entitled to a more beneficial or larger order in his favour but was allowed a lesser or smaller relief then to the extent of claiming the more beneficial or larger relief he should have filed a revision petition of his own as he was 'an aggrieved party' to that extent. 18. There is, therefore, no doubt in the present case that in a revision preferred under Section 20 of the Act by the tenant laying challenge to the propriety of the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 11(8) of the Act, the landlord could have urged that the order for eviction could be sustained under Section 11(3) of the Act also. The High Court has not erred in permitting the landlord to urge such a plea in the revision filed by the tenant though the landlord did not file any revision of his own. A landlord who has succeeded in securing an order of eviction on 5 ( 2025:HHC:20724 ) one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. He cannot file a revision rather he can feel satisfied with the order. The person aggrieved is the tenant and in a revision preferred by the tenant it is only just and equitable that the landlord should be permitted to support the order of eviction by disputing correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order whereby the availability of additional ground for eviction was negatived. Such a right has to be necessarily spelled out in favour of the landlord who has succeeded from the court below else there would be grave injustice. 8. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nalakath Sainuddin (supra), Civil Revision No.137 of 2018 filed at the behest of the landlord is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) July 01, 2025 (KS) Judge