Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 8 (HP)

HIROO RAM v. NIRMLA DEVI

2001-01-05

R.L.KHURANA

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J. (Oral). 1. The petitioner before this Court is the tenant, while the respondents are the landladies. The tenanted premises consists of four rooms set situated on the first floor to the building known as Comely Bank in Station Ward, Shimla. 2. The landladies sought, the eviction of ht tenant from the tenanted premises on the gound that the same were bonafide required by the landlady No. 1, namely, Smt. Nirmla Devi for her won occupation and for occupation of her other family members. 3. The petition was resisted and contested by the tenant and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 11.5.1999: 1. Whether the premises in dispute are bonafide required by the petitioner for her own use and occupation and for the use and occupation of her family members? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 3. Whether the petition is malafide and lacks material particulars, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition due to their acts, deeds, conduct, lapses, omissions and admissions? OPR 5. Relief. 4. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 24.6.1992 dismissed the petition. While dismissing the petition, the learned Rent Controller placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case Tara Chand Sharma vs Baij Nath and others (1994 (Suppl.) Sim. L.C. 87) and it was held that the petition filed by the landladies was bad since it did not contain the necessary pleadings as required under section 14(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 1987. Be it stated that no findings were recorded by the learned Rent controller on the merits of the case qua the bonafide need of the landladies of the tenanted premises for self occupation. 5. Aggrieved, the landladies went up in appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla Taking note of the fact that the decision of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma Vs. Baij nath and others (supra) was set aside by the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 46760 of 1995 decided on 7.12.1995, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller holding the petition for ejectment filed by the landladies as bad. Baij nath and others (supra) was set aside by the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 46760 of 1995 decided on 7.12.1995, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller holding the petition for ejectment filed by the landladies as bad. After setting aside such findings of learned Rent Controller, the learned Appellate Authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merits of the case and upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landladies for self occupation. Resultantly. An order for ejectment was passed against the tenant on 1.10.1997. 6. At the very out-set, it may be stated that the impugned order dated 1-10-1997 of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. As stated above, the leaned Rent Controller had not gone into the merits of the case and had not decided the question with regard to the bonafide requirement of the landladies. The petition for ejectment was dismissed simply on the ground that the same was bad since it did not contain all the necessary pleadings required to be pleaded under Section 14(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. 8. The learned appellate Authority once it had set aside the findings of the leaned Rent Controller, ought to have called for findings of the learned Rent Controller on the merits of the case qua bonafide requirement of the landladies, before proceedings to hear the appeal on merits. Such course was never adopted by the learned Appellate Authority and instead it proceeded to hear the appeal on merits without there being any findings of the learned Rent Controller on the question. 9. The learned counsel for the landladies has contended that since the specific issue with regard to the bonafide requirement of landladies, namely, issue No. 1 was found against the landladies, it cannot be said that there are no findings of the learned Rent controller qua bonafide need of the landladies. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the landladies has contended that since the specific issue with regard to the bonafide requirement of landladies, namely, issue No. 1 was found against the landladies, it cannot be said that there are no findings of the learned Rent controller qua bonafide need of the landladies. 10. No doubt, the learned Rent controller has observed that issue No. 1 is decided against the landladies, however, a bare reading of the order dated 24.6.1992 of the learned Rent controller shows that neither the evidence led by the parties qua issue No. 1 was considered nor there is any specific finding whether the requirement of the landladies is bonafide or not. Issue No. 1 was simply decided against the landladies only on the ground that the petition was bad since it did not contain all the necessary pleadings required to be pleaded under the law. In Smt. Swarn Lata Ghosh Vs. Harendra Kumar Banerjee and another (AIR 1969 SC 1167) where the trial court had decreed the suit without delivering judgment and recording the reasons therefor...... it was held by the Honble Apex Court as under: “Trial of a civil dispute in Court is intended to achieve, according to law and the procedure of the Court, a judicial determination between the contesting parties of the matter in controversy. Opportunity to the parties interested in the dispute to present their respective cases on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts by means of evidence tendered by the parties, and adjudication by a reasoned judgment of the dispute upon a finding on the facts in controversy and application of the law to the facts found, are essential attributes of a judicial trial. In a judicial trial the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest: it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The appellant Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has recorded no reasons in support of his conclusion, and the High Court in appeal merely recorded that they though that the plaintiff had sufficiently proved the case in the plaint." 11. Setting aside the decrees passed by the two courts below, the Honble Apex Court remanded the case for disposal afresh in accordance with law. In the present case as well, on the failure of the Rent controller to go into the question of bonafide requirement of the landladies, the learned Appellate Court without calling for findings of the learned Rent Controller has erred in going into the merits of the case and in arriving at the conclusion that the landladies bonafide required the tenanted premises for self occupation. 12. A contention was raised on behalf of the landladies that the powers of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are co-terminus and as such, the Appellant Authority was well within its powers and jurisdiction to decide the case on merits even in the absence of findings of the learned Rent Controller. In support, reliance was sought to be placed on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. commissioner of Income Tax and another (1991 Supp (2) SCC 744). In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Income Tax Act and it was held that powers of Appellate Assistant Commissioner are co-terminus with that the Income Tax Officer and in the absence of any statutory provisions the Appellate Authority is vested with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. 13. 13. The ratio relied upon by the leaned counsel for the landladies does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Honble Supreme Court, the matter was decided by the Appellate Authority on an additional ground which was not raised before the subordinate Authority. It was not a case that the matter was not decided by the subordinate Authority on merits and it came to be decided by the Appellate Authority in appeal. Besides, in coming to the conclusion that powers of the Appellate assistant Commissioner are co-terminus with that of Income Tax Commissioner, reference was made to the specific provisions contained in Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. There is no corresponding provision in the HP. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. 14. Under the circumstances, there is no option but to set aside the order dated 1.1.01997 of the learned Appellate Authority and to remand the case to the learned Rent Controller for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The learned Rent Controller shall decide the question of bonafide requirement of the landladies without being prejudiced in any manner with the observations made by the learned Appellate authority in its order dated 1-10-1997. The case shall be disposed of by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence coming on the record 15. Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 18.1.2001. The record be returned to the learned Rent controller forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed. 16. Before parting, it may be stated that since the matter is quite old, the learned Rent Controller shall make all endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible; within six months from the date the parties put in appearance before him. C.M.P. No, 317 of 2000 This application for amendment of the reply by the tenant, in view of the order passed in the main matter, has become in fructuous. The tenant shall be at liberty to make a similar application before the learned Rent Controller without prejudice to the rights of the parties.