Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 46 (HP)

AMRO DEVI v. GURMAIL CHAND

2002-03-07

A.K.GOEL

body2002
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral):- By meas of this order it is proposed to dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 395 of 2000 titled Amro Devi and others v. Gurmail Chand and Civil Revision No.396 of 2000 titled Mast Ram v. Gurmail Chand. 2. Two ejectment petitions were filed by the respondent under Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the petitioners in these two revision petitions. He prayed t for the eviction of the tenants from the premises in their possession as a I specified landlord as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act. 3. Learned Rent Controller below after issuing notice as well as after considering the contents of the affidavit filed in opposition to the ejectment petition declined leave to contest to the petitioners- tenants. At the same time passed orders for ejectment. It is in this background that the orders are subject matter of this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri B.K. Sood, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-tenant raised a number of pleas with a view to set aside the impugened order of ejectment passed in favour of die respondent under Section 15 of the Act treating him as a specified landlord. Amongst others a plea based on Section 15(2) Explanation was also raised. In order to properly appreciate this submission Section 15(2) Explanation from the Act needs to be extracted: Explanation- For the purpose of this section the expression retirement includes the voluntary retirement but does not include resignation, discharge or dismissal from service. In this context, when a reference is made to Photostat copy of the "Approved Copy of Discharge Book", of the petitioner from Indian Army Force, it is clear that he was discharged from service. When this fact is read in the context of Explanation superior, "Discharge" is specifically excluded from the expression Retirement. 5. Faced with this situation, learned senior counsel made an attempt to say urge that so far present case is concerned, even otherwise a case for ejectment is made out. In this context, it may be stated that for seeing ejectment of a tenant, landlord has to file ejectment proceedings under Section 14 of the Act on various grounds. 5. Faced with this situation, learned senior counsel made an attempt to say urge that so far present case is concerned, even otherwise a case for ejectment is made out. In this context, it may be stated that for seeing ejectment of a tenant, landlord has to file ejectment proceedings under Section 14 of the Act on various grounds. With a view to mitigate hardship to a retiring person as defined under the Act, a special provision has been enacted in the Act. On a petition being filed under this special provision notice is issued to a tenant who there after files an affidavit claiming that there are grounds which warrant grant of leave to contest the claim of such landlord. Then in the event of leave being granted to contest the claim of such landlord, summary procedure as applicable to matters under Provincial Small Causes Act is to be followed. In the event of a leave being refused landlord is straightway entitled to an order of ejectment in his favour. 6. Thus provision is stringent. In fact it results in the passing of an order of ejectment virtually without contest, of course, on certain facts being brought before the Rent Controller. As such keeping in view the stringent nature of law strict compliance of all the provisions under the Act in the present case need to be ensured. As such plea urged on behalf of the landlord by learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted and merits dismissal. 7. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that the respondent- landlord on his own showing having been discharged from service of the Indian Air Force, was thus not entitled to recover immediate possession of the premises as a Specified Landlord under the Act. Therefore the impugned orders in both, these cases cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 8. Now the question that arises is how to proceed further in the matter. This question need not detain the disposal of present revision petitions any more, in view of decision of this Court in C.R. No. 399 of 1998, dated 20.4.1999 M/s. Banarsi Das and co. and others v. Lalit Sood. 9. In this case, landlord had sought ejectment of his tenant from the premises in question under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. This question need not detain the disposal of present revision petitions any more, in view of decision of this Court in C.R. No. 399 of 1998, dated 20.4.1999 M/s. Banarsi Das and co. and others v. Lalit Sood. 9. In this case, landlord had sought ejectment of his tenant from the premises in question under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Procedure to be followed by Rent Controller while dealing with the cases under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) and Section 15 of the Act is laid down in Section 16 of the Act. The landlord had failed to file certificate envisaged under law along with ejectment petition. It was filed lateron. While allowing the tenants revision against ejectment it was ordered that the same be treated as having been filed under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act, and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for disposal in accordance with law. This position was fairly stated by the learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing. He further informed that when the decision in CR 399 of 98 was challenged before the Supreme Court, and it has been upheld. 10. Similarly it cant be read down in the Explanation extracted here-inabove so as to give any benefit to the respondent-landlord. It is by now well settled that where language is simple and meaning is clear nothing is to be read down and simple meaning is to be given to the words as used in the statute. Legislature was well aware when "discharge" and "dismissal" were excluded from the term "retirement" wherein voluntary retirement was included. In view of this interpretation of Explanation of Section 15 of the Act, there is no escape but for allowing the present revision petitions. Ordered accordingly. As a further consequence of this the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller are hereby set aside. 11. Taking one from the decision in CR 399/98 supra it is also ordered that the ejectment petitions out of which these revision petitions have arisen shall be treated as having been filed under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Those shall be disposed of according to law by the Rent Controller. At this stage a further prayer was also made on behalf of the landlord that the ejectment petitions were filed in the month of August, 1999 and landlord was discharged from service on 29.4.1999. Those shall be disposed of according to law by the Rent Controller. At this stage a further prayer was also made on behalf of the landlord that the ejectment petitions were filed in the month of August, 1999 and landlord was discharged from service on 29.4.1999. His need is imminent therefore, Rent Controller may be directed to dispose of the ejectment petitions within reasonable time. This prayer seems to be reasonable. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller (5), Shimla on 1.4.2002. Thereafter learned Rent Controller shall expedite the final disposal of the cases with utmost expedition and despatch and in no case lateron 31.3.2003. It has been assured on behalf of the parties that their clients will render all assistance to the Rent Controller (5) to complete the proceedings within the aforesaid time frame. No costs. 12. Registry will ensure that record of both the cases is transmitted so as to reach well before the date fixed. An authenticated copy of this order may be placed on the file of C.R. No.396 of 2000. 13. All the interim orders made in both these petitions from time to time, shall stand vacated forthwith.