HP Rent Control Act | Wife Alone Succeeds Tenancy If Alive At Tenant's Death; No Further Devolution Permitted: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that upon the death of the original tenant, the right to succeed to the tenancy under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act is strictly governed by the statutory order of succession.

The Court remarked that since the wife was alive and residing with her husband at the time of his death, she alone became the lawful successor to the tenancy and, as per Explanation-II to Section 2(j) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, the right did not devolve upon any other legal heirs after her death.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Jawala Devi was alive and living with her husband upto the date of his death and therefore, she was only entitled for succession of tenancy… As per Explanation-II, right of every successor… shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs.”

The landlords filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant from a portion of a garage near Victory Tunnel, Shimla, on the grounds of arrears of rent, unauthorized construction impairing the value and utility of the premises.

The eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent controller, however, the appellate authority passed eviction order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court.

Submission of the tenant that acquisition of the property by the State had extinguished the landlord tenant relationship was rejected by the Court, on the ground that rent continued to be paid to the landlords even after acquisition, and upon de-acquisition, the parties reverted to their original status.

Relying on demolition orders, the Court noted that the said construction is not only without permission of Municipal Corporation, but also dangerous for existing single storey structure whereupon two storeys have been constructed.

Further the Court remarked that, considering the long pendency of the litigation and prevailing market rates, the Court enhanced the use and occupation charges payable by the tenants with prospective effect.

Thus, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

Case Name: Mohan Lal Goel & others v/s Prabha Bhagra & others.

Case No.: Civil Revision No.25 of 2006.

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025

For the Petitioners: Mr.Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate along with Mr.Harshit Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Mr. Rahul Sharma and Ms. Meera Devi, Advocates, vice Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 8.

Click Here To Read/Download Order