Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 260 (HP)

Kanta Devi Sharma v. Suresh Chand Puri

2015-03-27

SANJAY KAROL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J—Heard. An endeavor was made by this Court as also learned counsel, in making the parties understand the importance of an amicable settlement. However, they are adamant in passing the order. The findings returned by the courts below, ejecting the petitioner on the ground specified under the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as the Act), stand assailed in these proceedings. Limited plea raised now is with regard to the tenant's right of re-entry in the premises to be rebuilt. 2. The demised premises are situate in the main Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala. Petitioner herein is a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 30/-. The total area under her occupation is not in dispute. 3. Tenant's right of re-entry, after reconstruction of the demised premises is statutory in nature, under the saving clause contained in sub clause (c) of sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Act. 4. The apex Court in Syed Jameel Abbas and Others Vs. Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan etc., (2004) 4 SCC 781 , while dealing with the provisions which are pari materia in the Act in question, issued the following directions:- "9. All the three appeals are disposed of in terms of the following directions: (1). The three tenant respondents who have entered into possession of the three shops on 2.4.2004 situated in the north-east corner of the building shall be deemed to be holding the shops in their respective possession as tenants with effect from 2.4.2004. They will execute such rent notes in favour of the landlords as may be approved by the trial court. If the terms of the lease are not settled then the tenancy between the parties shall remain one for non-residential purpose running month by month. (2) The trial court shall ascertain the rent which is being paid by the tenants in the adjoining shops preferably the three shops which are of the dimension of 8' 0" x 8', 7' 10" x 8' and 7' 8" x 8' and appoint the same rent to be paid by each of the three tenants to the landlords month by month with effect from 2.4.2004. (3) The tenant respondents are entitled to payment of compensation for the period commencing 13.11.2001 up to 9.4.2003, the day of the order of the High Court reserving three shops for occupation by the tenants and which the tenants refused to occupy. The rate of compensation payable by the landlords to the tenants shall be calculated at the same rate at which rent is appointed by the trial court for payment by the tenants to the landlords. It shall be in the discretion of the trial court to direct the compensation being paid by the landlords to the tenants lump sum or to direct the same being adjusted as against payment of rent by the tenants to the landlords after the amount of compensation has been quantified." 5. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. R.S. Puran Mull Trust Vs. M/s. Dyal Sons, (2013) 2 RCR(Rent) 507, also acknowledging statutory right of re-induction of a tenant after reconstruction of the building. 6. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned counsel for the landlord, under instructions, states that subject to force majeure, building shall be reconstructed in a reasonable period and certainly within two years after receipt of all statutory sanctions and the tenants in the building, handing over possession to the landlord. Mr. Vaidya, states that prior to reconstruction, tenant(s) shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of vacating the premises. The statement is taken on record. 7. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the issue of market rent be left open to be determined by the Rent Controller at the time of re-induction of the tenant in the premises. Ordered accordingly. As and when any request is received by the Rent Controller, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months. Needless to add the Rent Controller shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) Landlord shall issue notice, calling upon the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises. (ii) Within two years, as undertaken, landlord shall reconstruct the premises. (iii) Immediately thereafter, he shall re-induct the tenant by putting her in possession of the equivalent area on the same floor, which would be handed over to the landlord. (ii) Within two years, as undertaken, landlord shall reconstruct the premises. (iii) Immediately thereafter, he shall re-induct the tenant by putting her in possession of the equivalent area on the same floor, which would be handed over to the landlord. (iv) As agreed, market rent shall be paid by the tenant, to be determined by the Rent Controller at the time of her re-induction.