Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 747 (HP)

Karam Chand v. Jasbir Kaur

2013-08-16

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in case No. 9-10/2010. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners-decree holders (hereinafter referred to as the "decree holders" for convenience sake) filed a Rent Petition 49/2 of 2002 against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents judgment debtors (hereinafter referred to as the "judgment debtors" for convenience sake), namely, Shri Himat Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant") in the court of learned Rent Controller under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on 20.6.2008. The eviction of the tenant was ordered on the ground that he was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from January 1984 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Eviction of the tenant was also ordered on the ground that the suit premises were bone fide required by the decree holders for carrying out the rebuilding and reconstruction as the suit premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the rebuilding and the reconstruction could not be carried out without getting the building vacated. The tenant was directed to hand over the suit premises to the landlords within a period of 30 days. In case the tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 9% within a period of 30 days, he was ordered to be evicted on this ground also. The judgment debtors filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority bearing Rent Appeal No. 18-S/13(b) of 2008. It was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 12.8.2010. The judgment debtors filed a Civil Revision No. 112/2010 against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority in this Court. The Court has passed the order on 4.10.2010 whereby the judgment debtors were ordered to pay the use and occupation charges @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. The judgment debtors also filed a review petition against the order dated 4.10.2010. It was rejected by the court on 20.9.2011. The SLP preferred against the impugned order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. In the meantime, the decree holders filed an Execution Petition bearing No. 9-10/2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) for issuance of warrants of possession. The judgment debtors filed objections to the same. It was rejected by the court on 20.9.2011. The SLP preferred against the impugned order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. In the meantime, the decree holders filed an Execution Petition bearing No. 9-10/2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) for issuance of warrants of possession. The judgment debtors filed objections to the same. The additional objections were also filed. The reply was also filed by the decree holders to the objections preferred by the judgment debtors. However, the fact of the matter is that the Civil Revision bearing No. 112/2010 was rejected by this court on 26.4.2012. The operative portion of the judgment dated 26.4.2012 reads as under: 9. In view of the above, the impugned order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority are upheld subject to the following conditions:- i) In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harrington House School, supra, which has also been followed by this court in a series of cases, the order(s) of eviction shall not be liable to be executed unless the landlords produce before the Executing Court plans of the building duly sanctioned by the competent authority. ii) The tenants shall be entitled to the protection of the amendment carried out in Section 14 of the Act by way of insertion of a proviso to clause (c) to Sub-Section 3 thereof, meaning thereby that they shall have "the right to re-entry on new terms of tenancy, on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord and the tenant, to the premises in the rebuilt building equivalent in area to the original premises for which he was a tenant", in accordance with law. 3. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) disposed of the objections on 19.6.2012. The decree holders were directed to produce the duly sanctioned plans in view of the directions issued by the court. 4. Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the judgment debtors have not deposited the use and occupation charges as ordered by this Court in Civil Revision No. 112/2010 vide order dated 4.10.2010. He then contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the sanctioned plan was not required to be produced before the Executive Court. 5. Mr. He then contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the sanctioned plan was not required to be produced before the Executive Court. 5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Learned Senior Advocate has supported the order dated 19.6.2012. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the rent petition was allowed on 20.6.2008. The rent appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority on 12.8.2010. This court has directed the judgment debtors to deposit the use and occupation charges @ Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from the date of passing of the order by the appellate authority. The review petition preferred against the order dated 4.10.2010 was dismissed by the Court and the SLP was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that even during the pendency of this revision petition, the judgment debtors have not deposited the use and occupation charges. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has also observed that the use and occupation charges have not been deposited even after the matter was decided by this court. Primarily, the application has been rejected by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the ground that the building plans have not been produced before the Executing Court. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikas Sood and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 243 have held that u/s 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 duly sanctioned building plan is not a condition precedent for entitlement of landlord for eviction of tenant. Their Lordships have held as under: 17. In fact, the only question that we have to decide in this appeal filed by the appellant is whether the High Court could have directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building plant being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The High Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. The High Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. (supra) and we find in that case that the landlords were builders by profession and they needed the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a multi-storey complex and the tenants were running a school in the tenanted building in which about 200 students were studying and 15 members of the teaching staff and 8 members of the non-teaching staff were employed and the school was catering to the needs of children of non-resident Indians. This Court found that although the plans of the proposed construction were ready and had been tendered in evidence, the plans had not been submitted to the local authorities for approval and on these facts, R.C. Lahoti, J., writing the judgment for the Court, while refusing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and affirming the eviction order passed by the Controller, directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of reconstruction for approval of the local authorities and only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authorities, a decree for eviction shall be available for execution and further that such sanctioned plan or approved building plan shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering the possession to the landlord and till then the tenants shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the said premises at the same rate at which they are being paid. 18. In the present case, on the other hand, as we have noted, the Rent Controller while determining the bonafides of the appellant-landlord has recorded the finding that the landlord had admittedly obtained the sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, and has accordingly passed the order of eviction and this order of eviction has not been disturbed either by the Appellate Authority or by the High Court as the Revision Authority. In our considered opinion, once the High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Controller u/s 14(4) of the Act, the tenants were obliged to give vacant possession of the building to the landlord and could only ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of the building to the landlord and hence the direction of the High Court that the order of eviction could only be executed on the revised plan of the building being approved was clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act and the proviso thereto. 9. Thus, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment debtors are liable to be evicted to enable the decree holders to reconstruct/rebuild the premises and also for not depositing the use and occupation charges as ordered by the court on 4.10.2010. The landlord, as per the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred hereinabove, is not required to produce the sanctioned building plans before the Executing Court. Accordingly in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge senior division dated 19.6.2012 is set aside. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) is directed to issue warrant of possession against the judgment debtors and also to conclude the execution proceedings for the recovery of use and occupation charges as ordered by the Court with effect from the date of order passed by the appellate authority, i.e. 12.8.2010 @ Rs. 10,000/- per month expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 30.8.2013. Pending application if any also stand disposed of. No costs.