2026:HHC:8194 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 13/2021 Reserved on: 10.3.2026 Decided on: 20.03.2026 Rajeev Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Ram Devi &ors. ….Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. B. S. Attri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mota, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 2 (a), 2 (c), 4 and 5. Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate, as Court Guardian, for respondents No. 6 and 7. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the order dated 30.4.2019, as passed by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Una, H.P. in rent appeal No. 1/2019 preferred by the present petitioner/tenant under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for brevity, “the Rent Act”) was dismissed 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 and the order dated 21.2.2019, as passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. III, Una, in Rent Petition No. 8/2016, was affirmed. 2 Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed an application under Section 11(2) of the Rent Act for restoration of the essential services to the petitioner. It was averred that the premises in question were taken on rent in the year 2001 vide rent deed dated 15.7.2001 and the same are non-residential and are being used as office by the petitioner/tenant for the purpose of sending news to news channel, namely, Doordarshan and ETV Haryana, Himachal. The petitioner has employed one Amit Sharma as a Cameraman. He has occupied two rooms, kitchen, one bathroom, stairs and roof and in that respect, site plan was also appended with the aforesaid application. According to the petitioner, he is paying Rs.2500/- per month and he is also paying electricity bills. The premises are situated on the first floor of the building consisting of two rooms, one bath, stairs and right to use the rooftop. The rented premises are shown in red colour in the site plan and the stairs marked with red colour are also part of the rented premises. These stairs are the only passage for the office of the petitioner. It was further averred that the respondent/landlady is putting undue 3 pressure for vacation of the rented premises with an ulterior purpose to harass the petitioner/tenant to forcibly evict him from the premises in question. The respondent/landlady has installed two iron gates - one on the first floor and another at roof level and has locked the gates on 20.4.2016. It was further averred that eviction proceedings are pending in the competent court of law against the petitioner/tenant. Since the respondent/landlady has locked the ingress of the petitioner/tenant, thereby she has deprived him of using premises as well as its roof. 3 It was also alleged that the respondent/landlady has also dismantled six dish bases constructed over the roof and has also dismantled a wall erected over the roof and the said acts on the part of the respondent/landlady amount to cutting of essential services of passage and urinals. 4 In this background, the petitioner/tenant filed an application seeking direction to the respondent/landlady to reconstruct the dismantled dish bases and wall, to open the locks put on newly installed gates on stairs, to restore the passage leading to the office of the petitioner, as also the essential services of passage, toilet, water immediately without any delay. 4 5 The respondent/landlady filed reply to the said application by raising various objections such as maintainability, locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that the premises in question are residential on the first floor and were given to the petitioner for his stay and the same were not being used by the petitioner/tenant for running his office. It was denied that the petitioner had employed one Amit Sharma, rather it was submitted that the petitioner had sub let the premises to Amit Sharma, who is un-authorizedly running business of cable network. It was further averred that the respondent/landlady has already filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant before the learned Rent Controller in the year 2014 and the application, which has been filed by the petitioner/tenant, is sheer abuse of process of law. 6 It was denied that the stairs and roof were also given to the petitioner, as alleged in the application. Stairs and roof were never rented out to him. It was also denied that one wall was erected on the roof. It was averred that no wall was ever erected by the petitioner. In the year 2007-08, the police had raised the premises and all the dish-antenna on the roof were erected by the police department. The respondent/landlady along with the residential premises had given one shop consisting of one room in the ground floor in which the 5 petitioner was doing his cable business. However, the petitioner ceased to occupy that premises since the police raided the same. 7 It was specifically denied that iron gates were installed on the first floor stairs, which are heading to the rooftop about 8 years back. The iron gates were installed for the reason that respondent No.1 Ram Devi stays on the first floor along with her daughter-in-law. Since two ladies are staying along with small children in the house, therefore, it was necessary for the protection of the house from burglars and more so for the protection of the children from any unforeseen incident. It was denied that the respondent/landlady has locked ingress of the petitioner. It was pleaded that the ingress and egress of both the tenant and landlady are from a common staircase and there is no lock or gate on the stairs heading to first floor. As regards toilet, it was averred that there are four toilets on the first floor and the petitioner was allowed to use any of them since it was for the common use for the persons, who were staying on the first floor. Lastly, it was averred that since there was no obstruction on the part of the respondent/landlady, therefore, no question of restoration of essential services arises in the proceedings. 6 8 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the issues in following manner:- 1. Whether the respondents being landlord, has cut off or withheld essential supply or service enjoyed by applicant in respect of rented premises let out to him, as alleged? OPA 2. Whether the applicant is entitled for the reliefs claimed? OPA 3. Whether the application is not maintainable in its present form, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether there is suppression and concealment of true and material facts, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the applicant is estopped to file the present application by his own act and conduct? OPR 6. Relief. 9 The learned Rent Controller directed the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their contentions and finally the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 21.2.2019 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(2) of the Rent Act. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred a rent appeal before the learned Appellate Authority-II, Una on 28.3.2019, however, the learned Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal and the findings as returned by the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. 7 10 Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/tenant has filed the present petition against the orders as passed by the learned Authorities below. 11 It is contended by Mr. B. S. Attri, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/tenant that by installing gates, the respondent/landlady has obstructed his ingress and egress to the premises in question. He has submitted that the landlady has got no right to obstruct the use of the passage by installing gates and putting locks on the same. He has further submitted that findings of the learned Authorities below are erroneous and matter in hand has not been decided in accordance with law. 12 On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev K. Mota, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1, 2(a), 2(c), 4 and 5 and Ms. Tanu Sharma, Advocate, appearing as Court Guardian for respondents No. 6 and 7 have defended the orders as passed by the learned Authorities below and they have vehemently argued that the Authorities below have rightly passed the orders under challenge and there is no scope of interference that too in civil revision. They have submitted that the petitioner/tenant is unnecessary harassing the landlady and has filed present proceedings just to avoid the eviction from the 8 premises in question, qua which eviction petition is also pending before the competent court of law. 13 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on the case file. 14 Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, this Court will with deal with legal proposition as laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, wherein it was held as under: “45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that 9 event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re- appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 15 Aforesaid exposition of law reveals that this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Act shall not only be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper, but also is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to correctness of the impugned decision, this Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re- 10 assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. As held hereinabove, revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal and as regards scope of interference, it has to be determined whether the orders passed by the learned Authorities below are perverse or of no evidence. 16 Now, coming to the factual matrix of the case at hand, it has come on record that Piare Lal Bains, who has prepared the site plan, Ext. PW1/A, while deposing in the witness box as PW1, has categorically admitted that there exists common stairs in the premises in question. He has also admitted that both the parties used the common passage to approach their respective floors. 17 To the similar effect is testimony of Amit Sharma, who appeared in the witness box as PW2. He has admitted that there exists four common bath rooms in the first floor, one of which was used by them. He has also admitted that there is common water pipe connection as well as common stairs from ground floor to the first floor. He has admitted that for the purpose of security, it was necessary to install gates upon the entry. He has categorically admitted that there are no locks on the gates installed on the stairs at the ground floor. 11 18 To the similar extent is testimony of petitioner/tenant himself, who, while appearing in the witness box, as PW3, has categorically admitted that the residential house of the respondent/landlady as well as disputed premises exist on the first floor adjoining to each other. He has admitted that their exits common stairs to approach the first floor, which are being used by both the parties. He has also admitted that the compromise, Ext. Ext. R1, was entered into the parties on 27.8.2016. 19 In order to rebut the case of the petitioner/tenant, the respondent/landlady entered the witness box as RW1 and deposed that the staircase is common to the residence of the respondent/landlady as well as the disputed premises. She deposed that there cannot be any obstruction by her since she herself is using the same stairs to reach her residence. 20 The said admissions on the part of the witnesses of the petitioner/tenant clearly clinch the entire controversy and further falsify the case of the petitioner/tenant that there is any obstruction on the part of the respondent/landlady. 21 Perusal of compromise Ext. R-1 having been effected between the parties and in the presence of the witnesses, on 27.8.2016, also falsifies the claim of the petitioner, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the 12 application, which was given by the petitioner/tenant against the respondent/landlady to the Superintendent of Police, Una, that was compromised between the parties and in that complaint, which he had made to the authorities with respect to installation of locks on the gate, respondent/landlady has stated that she has not put any lock on the gate and the petitioner being her tenant can certainly open the gates and for that landlady does not have any objection. 22 Perusal of the application filed the petitioner/tenant under Section 11 (2) of the Rent Act shows that the same was filed on 19.5.2016 and the compromise was effected between the parties during the pendency of the application on 27.8.2016. The petitioner/tenant has withheld this material document from the Court and the Authorities below have rightly non-suited the petitioner. 23 As per the compromise effected between the parties, the landlady, as noticed above, has agreed that she has not put any lock on the gate and the petitioner is her tenant, who could certainly open the locks. Once there is categoric admission on the part of the respondent/landlady in favour of the petitioner/tenant to open the gates, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. 13 24 The learned Authorities below, after thrashing the entire oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, have rightly come to the conclusion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner/tenant and he has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, this Court while exercising its revisional power will not act as an appellate court and will not re-appreciate or re-assess the averments which has already been done by the learned Authorities below. 25 In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 26 Before parting, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall be confined to disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the eviction petition stated to be pending before the learned Authority below, which would be considered as per its own merits. 27 Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (Romesh Verma) 20.03.2026 Judge (pankaj)