Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1944 (PNJ)

Het Ram v. Virbhan

2009-11-11

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2009
Judgment Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. 1. As strange as it may appear but strictly speaking the tendency and frequency of the tenants by retaining the possession of rented premises after the order of eviction, by misusing the process of law, and leaving the landlords in lurch, have been tremendously increasing day by day. The case in hand is a burning example of such like cases. 2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition filed by Met Ram son of Matu Ram- petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) and emanating from the record is, that originally Virbhan son of Fakir Chand-respondent- landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord) filed an ejectment petition No. 57 on 12.09.1992 against the tenant, invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") on the ground of non-payment of rent, impaired the value and utility of the shop by demolishing the floor and wails and the tenant used to create nuisance in the locality by giving bad names. 3. The tenant contested the ejectment petition, inter alia, stoutly denying the allegations contained therein and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence in order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases. The Rent.Controller held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs. 600/- per month and as the tenant did not make the payment and was defaulter, therefore, he was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. As a sequel of the findings, the Rent Controller vide order dated 19.08.1997 accepted the ejectment petition and directed the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within two months from the date of order. 5. The tenant did not feel satisfied with the ejectment order and filed rent appeal No. 10 on 19.09.1997 before the appellate authority. As soon as, the appeal came up for hearing on 24.10.1998. 5. The tenant did not feel satisfied with the ejectment order and filed rent appeal No. 10 on 19.09.1997 before the appellate authority. As soon as, the appeal came up for hearing on 24.10.1998. instead of arguing, the tenant entered into a compromise with the landlord and executed compromise deed (Annexure P/1), which is to the following effect :- "The above mentioned appeal has been compromised between the parties according to which Het Ram, appellant will vacate the shop in dispute and hand over the possession to respondent landlord Sh. Virbhan on 30.11.2004. The rent of the shop in dispute hence forth will be Rs. 750/- per month which has been settled and fixed. Besides this, appellant/tenant will increase after every year Rs. 60/- per month inclusive of taxes and will continue to pay the same to the respondent/landlord and landlord will issue receipt to the appellant/tenant. That the respondent landlord will not be entitled to take possession before 30.11.2004. In case Het Ram, tenant failed to deliver the possession on 30.11.2004, then respondent/landlord will be entitled to take possession through execution. The appellant/tenant shall not sub-let the shop in dispute upto 30.11.2004. As per the orders of the Court, the appellant has deposited rent upto October, 1998 which the respondent/ landlord will be entitled to receive the same. That from October, 1998, the appellant/tenant Met Ram will go on paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month inclusive of taxes and by increasing after every year Rs. 60/- per month, will continue to pay to the respondent/landlord. The appeal be decided in terms of this compromise and the compromise be made part of the order and the order of ejectment be passed accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own costs. Both the parties shall be bound with this compromise. The respondent/landlord shall withdraw all his previous cases and the previous dispute be finished as per the compromise". 6. Acting on the compromise between the parties, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide separate order of the same date (Annexure P/2), which reads as follows :- "The parties have compromised the case in this appeal. An application for permission to compromise the case has also been filed by Het Ram, petitioner. 6. Acting on the compromise between the parties, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide separate order of the same date (Annexure P/2), which reads as follows :- "The parties have compromised the case in this appeal. An application for permission to compromise the case has also been filed by Het Ram, petitioner. The application has also been supported by the affidavit of Het Ram, written compromise F.x.Cl has also been placed on record which has been signed by both the parties and their respective counsel. The statement of Het Ram appellant as well as statement of Veerbhan respondent have also been recorded in which they have stated that they have compromised the case vide compromise Ex.Cl which may be treated as part of compromise. In view of the statement of the parties, the petition of the appellant (respondent in this appeal) is hereby decreed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. The written compromise Ex.Cl shall form part of the decree. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. It means, the tenant has accepted the order of ejectment, took time of about six years and undertook to vacate the shop and hand over the possession to the landlord on 30.11.2004. 7. As the tenant did not hand over the vacant possession as per his undertaking, the landlord filed the execution petition No. 11 on 26.02.2005 for taking possession. The tenant instead of honouring the undertaking and handing over the possession, filed the objection-petition which was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 10.03.2007 (Annexure P/3). The tenant again filed an appeal against the order dated 10.03.2007 which was dismissed with special cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P/4). The impugned orders (Annexures P/3 and P/4) would also reveal that the tenant has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the landlord restraining him (landlord) from dispossessing the tenant from the suit property on the basis of ejectment order dated 24.10.1998 in which stay application of the tenant has already been dismissed by the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, vide order dated 20.01.2006. 8. Having lost two rounds of litigation in the Courts below, now the tenant has challenged the impugned orders (Annexures P/3 and P/4) by way of this revision petition. That is how 1 am seized of the matter. 9. 8. Having lost two rounds of litigation in the Courts below, now the tenant has challenged the impugned orders (Annexures P/3 and P/4) by way of this revision petition. That is how 1 am seized of the matter. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, it is a case of absolute misuse of process of law by the tenant, and as there is no merit, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed with special costs for the reasons mentioned herein below. 10. The main celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the tenant that as the area where the disputed premises is situated was taken out of the purview of Municipal Area on 02.03.2000 and as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable, therefore, the Rent Controller was not justified in entertaining the execution petition and dismissing the objection petition of the tenant, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in a case titled as J.N. Katyal and another v. Krishan Kapur and others, 2005(1) RCR(Civil) 303:2005(1) RCR(Rent) 7: (2005-1) PLR 558, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff in that case being the owner/landlord of the house in dispute had filed a suit for possession on 11.10.1999 by way of ejectment of the tenant. During the pendency of the suit, the provisions of the Haryana Rent Act were made applicable to the Panchkula town vide notification dated 25.01.2001. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the judgment was upheld in appeal. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, it was observed that subsequent applicability of the Rent Act on account of declaration of urban area would render the decree of the Civil Court in executable. 11. Possibly, no one can dispute about the aforesaid propositions of law but the same would not come to the rescue of the tenant, because in the present case, admittedly, the provisions of Rent Act were fully applicable when the landlord filed the ejectment petition, the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order against the tenant and the appellate authority decided the appeal of the tenant on the basis of compromise. The tenant accepted the ejectment order and compromised the matter in appeal. The tenant accepted the ejectment order and compromised the matter in appeal. If the provisions of Rent Act were fully applicable at the relevant point of time then subsequent change will not, in any way, affect the rights already accrued to the landlord particularly when the tenant has accepted the order of ejectment by entering into compromise with the landlord. If the argument of learned counsel for the tenant is accepted then perhaps, no landlord would ever be able to get possession of his property. 12. An identical question came up for consideration before the Honble Apex Court in a case titled as M/s. Kesho Ram and Co. and others etc. v. Union of India and others, 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 425 : (1989)3 SCC151, wherein it was held as under :- "......It is a matter of common knowledge that final disposal of suits before the civil Court are time consuming in view of the heavy workload of cases and dilatory tactics adopted by the interested party. Having regard to time normally consumed for adjudication of a suit by the civil Court, it is loo much to expect that a suit filed within the period of exemption of five years can be disposed of finally within the period of exemption. The exemption contemplated by the notification permits the institution of a suit within the period of exemption. Taking into account the delay caused in disposal of the suit, it further protects the jurisdiction of the civil Court in passing decree of eviction with a view to make the exemption effective and meaningful. In this view, if the submission made on behalf of the tenants is accepted, it would render the exemption illusory, as in reality, it will be impossible for a landlord to get the suit decreed within the period of exemption even if he instituted the suit within the period of exemption. Interpretation of the Act and the impugned notification as suggested on behalf of the tenants if accepted would defeat the purpose of the beneficial social legislation. It is a settled rule of harmonious construction of statute that a construction which would advance the object and purpose of the legislation should be followed and a construction which would result in reducing a provision of the Act to a dead letter or to defeat the object and purpose of the statute should be avoided without doing any violence to the language. We therefore reject the submission made on behalf of tenants". 13. The same view was again reiterated by this Court in a case titled as Ramesh Kumar v. Paras Ram, RSA No. J 709 of 2006, decided on March 22, 2007. 14. Thus, it would be seen that once it is proved that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act at the time of institution and disposal of ejectment petition, the tenant accepted the ejectment order and his appeal was dismissed by the. appellate authority on 24.10.1998 on the basis of compromise between the parties, the tenant took time till 30.11.2004 and did not deliver the possession till today on one pretext or the other as discussed hereinabove, then, to me, it cannot possibly be saith that the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to execute the ejectment order in this regard, as urged on behalf of the tenant. 15. The other feeble argument of the learned counsel that since the Rent Controller did not assess the rent etc. and as the tenant did not accept the ejectment order before the appellate authority, so the order of appellate authority was void. inexecutable, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. As indicated earlier, the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.. The tenant filed the appeal before the appellate authority wherein be had submitted the compromise deed (Annexure P/l) and took long six years time to vacate the demised premises. Then it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant and he is estopped from his own Act and conduct to deny the legitimate right of the landlord, already accrued, to recover the possession of his premises. Instead of arguing the appeal, he (tenant) himself invited the Court to decide the matter in the wake of compromise deed. Meaning thereby, the tenant has first accepted the ejectment order and then compromised the matter. As his acceptance is inherent, inbuilt and implicit in this direction, in that eventuality, the tenant cannot claim that he has not accepted the ejectment order. 16. The matter did not rest there. He kept quite and did not challenge the order dated 24.10.1998 till the landlord filed the execution petition in the year, 2005. As his acceptance is inherent, inbuilt and implicit in this direction, in that eventuality, the tenant cannot claim that he has not accepted the ejectment order. 16. The matter did not rest there. He kept quite and did not challenge the order dated 24.10.1998 till the landlord filed the execution petition in the year, 2005. It will not be out of place to mention here that the landlord always has a legitimate/legal right to recover the possession of his property but subject to the restrictions contained in the Rent Act. If the tenant was aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.1998 of the appellate authority, he ought to have challenged the same at that point of time but now the tenant cannot possibly be heard to say that the earlier order of the appellate authority was not binding on him. If the arguments of the learned counsel for the tenant are accepted as such then it will cause a great injustice to the landlord. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the tenant stricto-sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 17. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that the unfortunate landlord filed the ejectment petition on 12.09.1992 and the tenant contested the same. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order on 19.08.1997. The tenant filed the appeal which was decided on the basis of compromise on 24.10.1998 and he took six years time till 30.11.2004 to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord. But instead of handing over the same, the tenant in order to delay the delivery of the possession, took recourse to various litigations and misused the process of law. He has not vacated the demised premises which necessitated the landlord to file the execution petition No. 11 on 26.02.2005 in which the tenant filed the objection-petition which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 10.03.2007 (Annexure P/3). The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P/4) with special cost of Rs. .5,000/- but even then the tenant did not learn the lesson and preferred the present revision petition which sans merit. 18. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P/4) with special cost of Rs. .5,000/- but even then the tenant did not learn the lesson and preferred the present revision petition which sans merit. 18. Thus, seen from any angle, to me, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the objections of the tenant in right perspective of the matter. No fault could possibly be attributed to the impugned orders and such orders cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, which is very limited and is confined only to testing the legality or propriety of the orders under revision. It is now well settled proposition of law that it is not the province of this Court to set aside such orders unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenant. It is, therefore, that the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby affirmed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 19. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. Be that as it may, but the fact remains is that the landlord is roaming around the matter since 12.09.1992 when he originally filed the ejectment petition. The tenant adopted illegitimate measures and took recourse to various litigations indicated hereinabove, to delay the delivery of possession. It means, the landlord remained unsuccessful in getting the possession of demised premises till today i.e., after long 17 years without any fault on his part. Thus, the tenant misused the process of law in this context. This illegitimate practice and tendency of the tenants needs to be curved by imposing a special cost in this direction, otherwise, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the landlord. 21. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with special costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). Petition dismissed.