Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 335 (HP)

NAND KISHORE v. MOHD. IDRISH

2002-12-12

R.L.KHURANA

body2002
JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The petitioner is the landlord while the respondents are the tenants. The parties are hereinafter being referred to accordingly. 2. The tenanted premises consist of a shop, being shop No. 12, Ward No. 1, Mohalla Katcha Tank, Nahan, located in Khata No. 103, Khatauni No. 189 and Khasra No. 367 near Masjid. 3. The landlord preferred a petition under Section 14, H.R Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Rent Act) seeking ejectment of the tenants from the tenanted premises on the following grounds:— (i) Non-payment of rent with effect from 1.11.1997; (ii) The tenants have carried out additions and alterations in the premises without the consent of the landlord which has resulted in closing of the door at the rear wall of the tenanted premises which was used for access to the backyard part of the vacant land of the landlord and there is no other passage through which the landlord can have access to his vacant part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 367; and (iii) The tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of making substantial additions and additions thereto, which cannot be carried out without the tenanted premises being vacated. 4. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 3.7.1999 held the tenants to be in arrears of rent with effect from 1.3.1998 at the rate of Rs. 350 per month and consequently he passed an order of eviction against the tenants on the grounds of non payment of rent. The other two grounds of ejectment put forth by the landlords were,, however, negatived by the learned Rent Controller. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller negativing his other two grounds of eviction, the landlord preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (II), Nahan. In such appeal, the correctness of the findings of the learned Rent Controller holding the tenants to be in arrears of rent with effect from 1.3.1998 at the rate of Rs. 350 per month were also assailed. 6. The learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.7.2000 dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller disallowing ejectment of the tenants on grounds (ii) and (iii) above. The ejectment of the tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent was upheld. 350 per month were also assailed. 6. The learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.7.2000 dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the findings of the learned Rent Controller disallowing ejectment of the tenants on grounds (ii) and (iii) above. The ejectment of the tenants on the grounds of non-payment of rent was upheld. However, it was held, on the basis of the agreement between the parties that rent would be payable as under:— (a) Rs. 350 per month till" 31.10.1992; (b) Rs. 385 per month with effect from 1.11.1992; and (c) Rs. 430 per month with effect from 1.11.1997 till date of the order. 7. The tenants were called upon to pay the entire arrears along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which they were ordered to be ejected from the tenanted premises. Still aggrieved, the landlord is before this court by way of the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act. 8. During the course of hearing of the present petition, an objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the tenants as to the maintainability of appeal at the instance of the landlord before the learned Appellate Authority as well as the present revision petition before this Court. It was contended that since the ultimate order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller was in favour of the landlord, he cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" and as such neither the appeal was competent nor the present revision petition is competent. 9. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the landlord that since ejectment of the tenants on grounds (ii) and (iii) above was refused by the learned Rent Controller, the landlord was a "person aggrieved" by the order dated 3.7.1999 of the learned Rent Controller, therefore, he could maintain an appeal under Section 21 of the Rent Act and similarly being a "person aggrieved" by the order dated 13.7.2000 of the learned Appellate Authority is competent to maintain the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act. In support of the contention reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the landlord on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Ram Asra Hari Chand v. Tara Chand and another, ILR (1983) HP 101. 10. In support of the contention reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the landlord on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Ram Asra Hari Chand v. Tara Chand and another, ILR (1983) HP 101. 10. In the said case, landlord therein had sought ejectment of the tenant on as many as six grounds, namely:— (a) Non-payment of rent; (b) Sub-letting; (c) the tenant having ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of twelve months preceding the filing of ejectment petition; (d) conversion of user; (e) the tenant having committed such acts as are likely to materially impair the value or utility of the tenanted premises; and (f) the tenant is guilty of such acts as are nuisance to the occupiers of the buildings of the neighbourhood. 11. The learned Rent Controller granted and passed ejectment order against the tenant only on the ground of non payment of rent. All other grounds put forth by the landlord therein were negatived. The landlord went up in appeal. The appellate authority allowed the appeal partly and passed ejectment order against the tenant also on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for a continuous period of twelve months without a reasonable cause. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the appellate Authority the tenant came up in revision. A contention was raised that the landlord had no right to file an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller since the final order of ejectment was in his favour and as such he could not be said to be a "person aggrieved" by the order of the Rent Controller within the meaning of Section 21 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, corresponding to Section 24 of the Rent Act. 13. Repelling the contention, it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court as under:— "In the present case the landlord/petitioner sought the eviction of the tenant on several grounds and one of the grounds was the nonpayment of rent. The Rent Controller decided all the grounds against the landlord/petitioner but decided the ground of non-payment of rent in favour of the landlord/petitioner. The Rent Controller decided all the grounds against the landlord/petitioner but decided the ground of non-payment of rent in favour of the landlord/petitioner. Under Section 14 of the Act, a tenant shall not be evicted as a result of an order of ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent due from him it he pays the amount due within a period of thirty days from the date of the order of ejectment. The order of ejectment against the tenant becomes unexecutable it the amount of rent due from a tenant is deposited within the statutory period of thirty days. In the present case because the order of ejectment was passed on the ground of non-payment of rent, therefore, this order could be nullified by deposit of the arrears of rent within the statutory period of thirty days. In such a case the relief of eviction sought by the landlord on other grounds was, in fact, disallowed. The landlord/petitioner pleaded many grounds for ejectment and led evidence on all the grounds of ejectment. The landlord/petitioner in the present case was definitely a person aggrieved from the order of the Rent Controller as he was not granted relief of ejectment on other grounds." 14. The abovesaid decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court can be said to have been impliedly overruled by the recent pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court in Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sidaiman, (2002) 6 SCC 1. 15. The case before the Honble Supreme Court was under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (fort short : The Kerala Act). The landlord therein sought the ejectment of the tenant on three grounds, viz., non payment of rent, bona fide need of the landlord for self occupation and that the landlord being in occupation of only part of the premises, required accommodation for his personal use. The trial Court ordered eviction of the tenant only on the grounds of non-payment of rent. The petition on other grounds was dismissed. The landlord as well as the tenant preferred appeals. While the appeal of the tenant was dismissed, the appeal of the landlord was partly allowed and eviction of the tenant was also ordered on the ground of need for additional accommodation in addition to the ground of nonpayment of rent. The petition on other grounds was dismissed. The landlord as well as the tenant preferred appeals. While the appeal of the tenant was dismissed, the appeal of the landlord was partly allowed and eviction of the tenant was also ordered on the ground of need for additional accommodation in addition to the ground of nonpayment of rent. The tenant went up in revision before the Kerala High Court, who upheld the eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. The High Court further came to the conclusion that the eviction order of the tenant could be sustained on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord for self occupation but it could not be sustained on the basis of the ground of need for additional accommodation. The High Court, therefore, modified the eviction order as passed by the first Appellate Court. The tenant then approached the Honble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition. In such appeal the landlord urged for passing of eviction order also on the ground of need for additional accommodation, which ground though allowed by the first Appellate Court was rejected by the High Court. In the meanwhile, the order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent had become ineffective as the tenant had deposited the necessary arrears of rent in accordance with the provisions of Section ll(2)(c) of the Kerala Act. In such appeal a question arose as to the meaning of "any aggrieved party" as appearing in Section 20 of the Kerala Act, the provisions of which are analogous to the provisions contained in Section 24(5) of the Rent Act. It was held that "any aggrieved party" the expression employed in Section 20(1) of the Kerala Act, 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. It was further held that a landlord who had succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. The person aggrieved is the tenant. It was further held that a landlord who had succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one of the several grounds urged by him cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by such order. The person aggrieved is the tenant. (Emphasis supplied) The Honble Supreme Court in arriving at the above conclusion approved the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Seetaram and others v. Smt. Ramabai and another, AIR 1958 MR 221 and a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in K. Venkataramani v. S. Aravamnthan and others, AIR 1982 Madras 36. 16. In Seetaram and others v. Smt. Ramabai (supra) Clause (21) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, which provides for an appeal being preferred by "any person aggrieved by an order" of the Controller to the Deputy Commissioner, came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It was held that "a person aggrieved" must be a man against whom a decision has been pronounced, which has wrongfully refused him something which he had a right to demand. Inspite of a ground for an order having been decided against him, if the operative part of the order is in his favour, the landlord though a "person aggrieved", is not a "person aggrieved by an order of the Controller". 17. Similarly, in K. Venkataramani v. S. Aravamuthan (supra) a case arising under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the landlord had sought ejectment of the tenant on two grounds, viz., non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement of the landlord for self occupation. The Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment on both the grounds against the tenant. The Appellate Authority, in appeal preferred by the tenant maintained the eviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent. As regards the bona fide requirement of the landlord, the Appellate Authority concluded that landlord had not been able to establish that the tenanted premises were bona fide required by him for self occupation. Therefore, ejectment of the tenant on such ground was declined. Aggrieved by the findings of the Appellate Authority holding him to be a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and thereby ordering his eviction, the tenant went up in revision before the High Court of Madras. Therefore, ejectment of the tenant on such ground was declined. Aggrieved by the findings of the Appellate Authority holding him to be a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and thereby ordering his eviction, the tenant went up in revision before the High Court of Madras. In such petition, while supporting the ejectment order on the grounds of non-payment of rent, it was contended by the landlord that the appellate authority had erred in holding that the landlord had not been able to make out their bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for self occupation and that an order of ejectment on such ground, as passed by the Rent Controller, was required to be sustained. A point was raised on behalf of the tenant that it was not open to the landlord, who had succeeded in securing an order of eviction on one ground, to challenge the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate authority on another ground on which such an order was refused. 18. It was held that no doubt, the landlord was the person who had been affected by the finding of the appellate authority on the question of bona fide requirement, though the ultimate decision was in his favour. Having secured an order in his favour, it was not open to the landlord to prefer an appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority on this point above, as the ultimate decision was in his favour. It was further held that a landlord, who had urged several grounds before the authorities below to secure an order for eviction of the tenant and had succeeded in establishing one of such grounds and had failed on the other grounds and secured ultimately an order in his favour, is nevertheless a person aggrieved with reference to these findings against him, if the ultimate decision of the authorities below is challenged by the opposite party. It was thus held that though in such a case the landlord may not be able to maintain an appeal/revision against the findings against him when the ultimate order is in his favour, it would be open to him to canvass the correctness of the findings recorded against him in an appeal/revision preferred by the tenant against the ultimate decision of the authorities below. 19. 19. The ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case on all fours. 20. Section 24(1 )(b) of the Rent Act provides for an appeal by "any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller", Similarly Section 24(5) of the Rent Act provides for a revision by any aggrieved party. 21. In the present case, admittedly out of the three grounds, an order of ejectment was passed against the tenant and in favour of the landlord only on one ground, that is, non-payment of rent. The ultimate order was, thus, in favour of the landlord. He, therefore, cannot be said to be a "person aggrieved" by the order either within the meaning of Section 24(1 )(b) or Section 24(5) of the Rent Act. As such neither the appeal by the landlord before the Appellate Authority was maintainable nor the present revision petition is maintainable. As a result, the present petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision dismissed. -