Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 874 (HP)

Roshan Lal Bhardwaj v. Ashok Sud

2013-10-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGEMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.7.2013 rendered by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Shimla in Case No. 17 10 of 2011. 2. "KEY facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents/landlords/decree holders (hereinafter referred to as the "decree holders" for the sake of convenience) filed a eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant/judgment debtor (hereinafter referred to as the "judgment debtor" for the sake of convenience) under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 bearing Case No. 47/2 of 2010/08. Learned Rent Controller I, Shimla ordered eviction of the judgment debtor vide order dated 30.6.2011 on the ground that the premises were required bonafide for rebuilding and reconstruction by the decree holders. On. 11.7.2011, decree holders filed execution petition for enforcement of the order dated 30.6.2011. Judgment debtor filed objections on 12.1.2012. Judgment debtor also filed an appeal before learned Appellate Authority, FTC, Shimla bearing case of No.40 S/14 of 2011. Learned Appellate Authority passed following order on 3.7.2012: "1. The applicant shall deposit use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.6000/ per month from 1.7.2011 onwards, within a period of one month from today with learned Rent Controller, Shimla/the respondent. 2. That he shall deposit the use and occupation charges of each month, at the rate of RS.6000/ per month before the 10th day of next calendar month, with the learned Rent Controller, Shimla/the respondent. 3. The sum so deposited shall be disbursed to the landlord and shall be subject to the final result of the appeal." Decree holder challenged order dated 3.7.2012 by filing Civil Revision No. 100/2012 in this Court, which was decided on 27.12.2012. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 27.7.2013. 3. MR. C.N. Singh, Advocate, has vehemently argued that since the appeal is pending before the learned Appellate Authority against eviction order dated 30.6.2011, execution petition could not be disposed of. He has also argued that the eviction order was conditional. He then contended that sanction granted in favour of the decree holder did not pertain to building in question. 4. MR. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has supported the impugned order dated 27.7.2013. What emerges from the facts, enumerated hereinabove, is that learned Rent Controller has allowed the eviction petition preferred by the decree holder. He then contended that sanction granted in favour of the decree holder did not pertain to building in question. 4. MR. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, has supported the impugned order dated 27.7.2013. What emerges from the facts, enumerated hereinabove, is that learned Rent Controller has allowed the eviction petition preferred by the decree holder. He has ordered the eviction of the judgment debtor on the ground of bonafide requirement for building and rebuilding. However, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harrignton House of School School vs. S.M. Ispahani and another AIR 2002 SC 2268 , eviction of the judgment debtor from the demised premises was ordered to be carried out only on production of duly sanctioned plan by the decree holder before the executing court. Decree holder produced sanction letter dated 5.7.2011 before the executing court. 5. MR. C.N.Singh, Advocate, has vehemently argued that original plan was submitted for approval by decree holder on 14.7.2009, but approval letter dated 7.6.2010, which was produced by decree holder, is different from the original plan. He has further contended that rough plan Ext.PW4/A was pertaining to two storeyed premises, whereas plan produced by decree holder is about approval in respect of four storeys plus parking as per approval letter dated 5.7.2011. It has come on record that earlier sanction plan also pertained to Khasra No.641. Decree holder submitted the original plan for approval on 14.7.2009. It was returned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla with certain objections. These objections were removed and decree holders re submitted the building plan and necessary approval was accorded to decree holder vide letter dated 5.7.2011. Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, has also argued that since the appeal is pending before the appellate authority, warrant of possession could not be ordered. It has come in the impugned order dated 27.7.2013 that judgment debtor has not complied with order dated 3.7.2012. The statutory authority has approved building plan submitted by the decree holder. It is for the decree holder how rebuilding /reconstruction is to be carried out. Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of considered by the Rent Controller in his judgment dated 30.6.2011, i.e. AIR 2002 SC 2268 has been distinguished by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and ors., 2013(5) SCC 243 . Their Lordships have held as under: "17. Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of considered by the Rent Controller in his judgment dated 30.6.2011, i.e. AIR 2002 SC 2268 has been distinguished by their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma vs. Vikas Sood and ors., 2013(5) SCC 243 . 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 and 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. 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 under Section 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 of 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." 19. We accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the directions in Para 27 of the impugned judgment of the High Court, but grant time to the respondents to vacate the building within three months from today. We make it clear that it will be open for the respondents to apply for re entry into the building in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Act introduced by the Amendment Act, 2009. Considering, however, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. ACCORDINGLY, in view of discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that it shall be open for the judgment debtor to apply for re entry into the building in accordance with the proviso to clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2013(5) SCC 243 read in conjunction with judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Revision No.49/2006, dated 8.7.2013. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.