Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 7 (MAD)

G. Haridoss v. Hemantharaj

2014-01-03

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.06.2010 in I.A. No.2 of 2010 in R.C.A. No.1 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gingee. 2. Facts in nutshell:- "The petitioner is the tenant. The first respondent was the original landlord and he filed R.C.O.P. No.9 of 1996 before the Rent Controller for eviction on the ground of demolition and re-construction. The tenant contested the petition and after trial, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Against the order, the tenant had filed an Appeal in R.C.A. No.2 of 2003 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In the Appeal, the tenant filed an application in I.A. No.2 of 2010 seeking permission of the Court to file additional counter contending that the original landlord sold the property and therefore, the bonafide requirement of the purchaser has to be taken into consideration before ordering eviction. The landlord resisted the petition. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed." 3. Heard Mr.N.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the R.C.O.P. was filed by one Hemantharaj in the year 1996 for demolition and re-construction of the petition premises. As per Section 14 of the Rent Control Act on satisfaction of the bonafide requirement of the landlord, the Rent Controller has to pass order of eviction. Since the petition premises was sold, pending appeal, the bonafide nature of the subsequent purchaser has to be decided before ordering eviction. Only to bring to the knowledge of the Appellate Authority and for deciding the bonafide requirement of the subsequent purchaser, the tenant had filed the application, which is very much necessary to decide the issues involved in the petition. But the Rent Control Appellate Authority, without assigning valid reasons, dismissed the application. Learned counsel has relied on the following judgments: "1. Mohd. Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar reported in 2010 2 Law Weekly 804; 2. Jai Prakash Gupta (D) thr. Lrs. Vs Riyaz Ahamad & Another reported in 2010 2 Law Weekly 809; for the proportion that subsequent development in the eviction proceedings have to be taken into consideration." 5. Learned counsel has relied on the following judgments: "1. Mohd. Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar reported in 2010 2 Law Weekly 804; 2. Jai Prakash Gupta (D) thr. Lrs. Vs Riyaz Ahamad & Another reported in 2010 2 Law Weekly 809; for the proportion that subsequent development in the eviction proceedings have to be taken into consideration." 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the landlord filed the eviction petition in the year 1996 and the tenant had deliberately dragged on the proceedings and ultimately eviction order was passed only on 01.08.2003. Against that order, the tenant had filed the appeal in the year 2003 and thereafter, the tenant filed the application in I.A. No.76 of 2007 under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code to stay the further proceedings in R.C.A. till the disposal of the C.R.P. No.1718 of 2004 relating to eviction proceeding of the another tenant. This Hon'ble Court by order dated 07.10.2009 dismissed the revision petition with a direction to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose the Rent Control Appeal within a period of five months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Subsequently, the tenant issued a notice dated 05.05.2009 to the landlord claiming that there was an agreement for sale and he had to come for execution of the sale deed, for which the landlord sent a reply on 18.05.2009. Thereafter, the tenant filed a petition before the District Judge, Villupuram for transfer of the Rent Control Appeal from Sub Court, Tindivanam to Sub Court, Villupuram on the allegation that a practising lawyer in Tindivanam had purchased the property. The transfer was ordered and thereafter, the tenant filed the present application seeking to file additional counter. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the conduct of the tenant would show that for some other reasons or other, he wanted to drag on the proceedings, causing much hardship to the landlord that the landlord who is a doctor by profession, last hope in the eviction proceedings. So he had sold the property that even after the sale, the requirement of the landlord for demolition will not change. The subsequent purchaser can step into the shoes of the original landlord to continue the proceedings. So he had sold the property that even after the sale, the requirement of the landlord for demolition will not change. The subsequent purchaser can step into the shoes of the original landlord to continue the proceedings. Learned counsel further submitted that subsequent events can be taken into consideration in the eviction proceedings, which should not cause inconvenience to the landlord. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B. Goyal reported in 2002 (2) SCC 256 and Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs Vimalabai Prabhulal and others reported in 2005 (8) SCC 252 . 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B. Goyal reported in 2002 (2) SCC 256 , held that subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding relief in the eviction proceedings. Para 11 reads as follows: "11. The ordinary rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of the institution of the suit and therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders (1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC 1409 this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The court may in such cases bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. Affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or reader inept he decretal remedy, (ii) rules or procedure may be bent if not specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed." 8. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others reported in 2005 (8) SCC 252 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras 7 and 8, has held as follows: "7. In the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani vs. Uttam Chand (2004) 8 SCC 490 it was held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord has to be seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be relevant. It was held that the crucial date is the date of petition. Their Lordships further observed that the normal rule is that the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined on the date of the petition and that subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding the reliefs provided such events had a material impact on those rights and obligations. It was further observed by Their Lordships that it is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. Therefore, the courts have to take a very pragmatic approach of the matter. It is common experience in our country that specially landlord–tenant litigation prolongs for a long period. It is true that neither can the person who has started the litigation sit idle nor can the development of the events be stopped by him. Therefore, the courts have to take a very pragmatic approach of the matter. It is common experience in our country that specially landlord–tenant litigation prolongs for a long period. It is true that neither can the person who has started the litigation sit idle nor can the development of the events be stopped by him. Therefore, the crucial event should be taken as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed unless the subsequent event materially changed the ground of relief. 8. In the case of Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 Their Lordships observed that the landlord should not be penalized for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial date for deciding the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. Their Lordships also observed that the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying the landlord relief while litigation at least reached the final stages. However, Their Lordships further added that subsequent events may in some situations be considered to have overshadowed the genuineness of the landlord's need but only if they are of such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need and make it lose significance altogether." 9. In the light of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bonafide requirement of the landlord has to be seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be relevant and the Court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly to promote substantial justice. 10. It is seen from the records that the original landlord Hamantharaj, filed the eviction petition in the year 1996, contending that the building was in a dilapidated condition and it requires immediate demolition and re-construction. The original landlord also stated that the new building will fetch more revenue. During the trial, the landlord was examined as PW1 and he also marked documents Ex.A1 to A4, which includes the approved plan issued by the Tindivanam Municipality. The sale of the petition premises is not in dispute. The subsequent purchaser also filed his affidavit dated 02.06.2009 undertaking to demolish the properties and put up new construction to satisfy the requirement of the Rent Control Act. 11. The sale of the petition premises is not in dispute. The subsequent purchaser also filed his affidavit dated 02.06.2009 undertaking to demolish the properties and put up new construction to satisfy the requirement of the Rent Control Act. 11. It is also seen from the records that the Rent Control Appeal was filed in the year 2003 and for more than 10 years, the appeal is pending without any progress. So the subsequent purchaser can continue the proceedings. The contention of the tenant that he should be given an opportunity to lead fresh evidence about the subsequent developments, cannot be accepted. 12. In view of the above conclusion, I could see no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to dispose the appeal within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observation made in this order. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.