Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 909 (HP)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Vinod Lakhanpal

2015-07-20

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge: The instant revision petition has arisen against the impugned order rendered by the learned Rent Controller (1) Shimla in case No.7-10 of 2013 on 11.9.2014 whereby it dismissed the objections instituted by the petitioner herein/judgment debtor/ tenant against the execution of the order of the Rent Controller (1), Shimla of 10.1.2013 which stood modified on 26.8.2013 by the learned Appellate Authority. 2. A perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller modified in appeal by the Appellate Authority discloses that the findings on Issue No.(i) were rendered in favour of the landlord-respondent herein/decree holder. However, on issues No.(ii) & (iii), the learned Rent Controller recorded findings against the decree holder/respondent herein. The issues as well as the findings recorded thereon stand extracted hereinafter:- (i) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 22.7.2008, as alleged? OPP (ii) Whether the demised premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for raising building which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated? OPP (iii) Whether the petition has been filed with malafide intention, as alleged, if so its effect? OPR (iv) Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPR (v) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR (vi) Relief. Issue-wise findings: (i) Yes. (ii) No (iii) Yes (iv) No (v) No (vi) The petition partly allowed as per operative part of the order. 3. The learned Rent Controller had on a perusal of evidence adduced before it, concluded that the Judgment Debtor/petitioner herein/tenant had fallen into arrears of rent w.e.f. August 2007 to 31.12.2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month, which amount was computed by it to be a sum of Rs.3,24,000/-. The petitioner herein/judgment debtor to escape eviction from the demised premises on the score of its having fallen into arrears of rent, was liable to, within 30 days from the date of rendition of the order by the Rent Controller defray to the respondent herein/decree holder the aforesaid amount by the legally permissible mode. However, the judgment debtor/petitioner herein omitted to do so. It is beaten law of the land that the statutory period of 30 days within which the liability of rent as determined against judgment debtor/petitioner herein by the learned Rent Controller is enjoined to be defrayable to the decree holder/respondent herein by the legally permissible mode, is neither extendable nor enlargeable. However, the judgment debtor/petitioner herein omitted to do so. It is beaten law of the land that the statutory period of 30 days within which the liability of rent as determined against judgment debtor/petitioner herein by the learned Rent Controller is enjoined to be defrayable to the decree holder/respondent herein by the legally permissible mode, is neither extendable nor enlargeable. Consequently, the judgment debtor/petitioner herein having omitted to by the legally permissible mode defray its determined liability towards arrears of rent for the demised premises to the decree holder/respondent herein, within a period of 30 days from the date of rendition of an order by the learned Rent Controller, was beset with the ensuing legal consequence of its suffering eviction from the demised premises. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has sought to contend that the period of 30 days as mandated by the order of the Rent Controller in tandem with the statutory prescription cast in the relevant statute for a tenant/judgment debtor/petitioner herein to defray its liability towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises to the decree holder/respondent stood enlarged or extended in the face of there existing an error constituted by the fact, of the operative portion of the order of the Rent Controller displaying that the judgment debtor/petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent qua the demised premises w.e.f. August, 2007 to 31.12.2012, whereas the accurate depiction therein qua the period for which the petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent was to have been w.e.f. August, 2008. The existence of the said error in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller fastening a liability upon the petitioner herein to deposit the determined arrears of rent qua the demised premises within 30 days thereto, justifiably precluded and prevented the petitioner herein to comply with the aforesaid orders within the statutorily mandated period of 30 days. Besides, the counsel contends that with the Appellate Authority while disposing of Rent Appeal No. 67-S/14 of 2013 had while countenancing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein had permitted the carrying out of a necessary correction in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller, inasmuch as, the period for which the judgment debtor/petitioner herein was held to have fallen into arrears of rent qua the demised premises being reckonable not from August, 2007 but from August, 2008. In aftermath, it is contended before this Court that the rectification aforesaid by the Appellate Authority while being seized of an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller inasmuch as its directing the judgment debtor/petitioner herein to defray its liability towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises to the decree holder from August, 2008 to 31.12.20012 @ Rs.6000/- per month also connotes enlargement or extension of period, to the judgment debtor/petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent as erroneously determined by the learned Rent Controller. Besides, it is contended that the period of 30 days for the petitioner herein to defray the arrears of rent qua the demised premises in the legally permissible mode to the respondent herein is to be computed there-from. 4. The above argument which is with great force canvassed before this Court staggers and falls apart in the face of an averment in the petition magnifyingly displaying the fact that the petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent qua the demised premises w.e.f. August, 2008 to 31.12.2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month. Moreover, the petitioner does not controvert the said fact while proceeding to file a reply thereto. Consequently, when hence the judgment debtor/petitioner herein was equipped with the necessary knowledge of it being in arrears of rent qua the demised premises w.e.f. August, 2008 to 31st December, 2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month it ought to have rather proceeded to at the initial stage inasmuch as at the time contemporaneous to the rendition of the order of eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of its having fallen into arrears of rent, deposit the amount constituting its accepted liability towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises by adopting the legally permissible mode. Besides preceding the deposit of its accepted liability towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises, it could well have when the narration or recital in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller qua commencement of the period from which the petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent was inadvertently displayed therein to be commencing from August, 2007 instituted an appropriate application before the Rent Controller for rectifying the occurrence by way of inadvertence arising from a typographical/clerical mistake, the recital therein of the judgment debtor/petitioner herein having fallen into arrears of rent w.e.f. August, 2007, whereas the commencement of its liability towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises towards the judgment debtor/petitioner herein was rather to be computed from August, 2008. Even when the judgment debtor/petitioner herein had conceded to the factum of it being in arrears of rent qua the demised premises from August, 2008 to 31st December, 2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month, its acquiescence to the said period constituting the time for which its liability towards arrears of rent was rather by way of a typographical/clerical error occurring in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller inadvertently not determined rather was erroneously determined to be commencing from August, 2007, all the more enjoined upon the judgment debtor/petitioner herein, for escaping eviction from the demised premises, to move an application promptly before the Rent Controller for rectifying the existence of the aforesaid typographical mistake in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller. The judgment debtor/petitioner herein omitted to do so, rather even when it proceeded to institute an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order of the Rent Controller it merely projected the existence of the aforesaid typographical error occurring in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller, to be a ground for interfering with the impugned order. However, a perusal of the order, rendered on 26.8.2013 by the Appellate Authority on an appeal preferred before it against the order of the Rent Controller, displays that the learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor/petitioner herein had constrained the Appellate Authority while being seized of an appeal against the orders of the Rent Controller to dispose it of after carrying out a rectification of the typographical/clerical mistake occurring in the relief clause of the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller, inasmuch as there being mis-computation of liability of the judgment debtor/petitioner herein towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises arising from a mis-reflection qua the commencement of period from which the judgment debtor/petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein was accepted by the Appellate Authority and the typographical mistake occurring in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller inasmuch as the reflection therein of the judgment debtor/petitioner herein being in arrears of rent towards the decree holder/respondent herein qua the demised premises w.e.f. August, 2007 to 31.12.2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month was corrected to be commencing from August, 2008 to 31.12.2012 @ 6000/- per month. The submission addressed by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor/petitioner before the Appellate Authority while arguing on an appeal preferred by it against the order of the Rent Controller per se magnifies the fact that apart from the occurrence of a typographical/clerical mistake in the order of the Rent Controller constituted by the fact their arising from a clerical mistake a misreflection of the period from which the judgment debtor/petitioner herein fell into arrears of rent qua the demised premises, no other submission was addressed before the learned appellate authority. The submission addressed by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor/petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the orders rendered thereupon concomitantly display knowledge or the awareness of the judgment debtor/petitioner qua the mis-computation of liability of the judgment debtor/petitioner herein towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises in the orders of the Rent Controller and such purported mis-computation arising from a typographical mistake inasmuch as there being a misreflection therein qua the commencement of the period from which the judgment debtor/petitioner fell into arrears of rent towards respondent/decree holder qua the demised premises. Obviously, when the petitioner is to be construed to be aware of the existence of a clerical error in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller, the appropriate mode available to the judgment debtor/petitioner was to at the first instance before the learned Rent Controller move an application for correction of the typographical mistake. It having omitted to do so rather having concerted to institute an appeal before the Appellate Authority on the score of their existing a typographical mistake in the operative part of the order of the Rent Controller portrays indiligence besides a deliberate procrastination on the part of the judgment debtor/petitioner herein to escape its admitted liability of defraying the entire arrears of rent qua the demised premises portrayed in its reply to the rent petition to be computable from August, 2008 to 31st December, 2012 @ Rs.6000/- per month. Consequently, given the awareness of the judgment debtor/petitioner qua its liability to the respondent/decree holder towards arrears of rent qua the demised premises and its having omitted to at the earliest before the learned Rent Controller when there is a sheer mis-reflection in the order of the Rent Controller qua the commencement of the period from which computation of liability of arrears of rent of the judgment debtor/petitioner qua the demised premises to the decree holder/respondent herein, get it rectified obviously then no leverage or sinew can be imputed to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the date when the said typographical mistake stood belatedly rectified by the appellate authority, the period of 30 days within which the judgment debtor/petitioner herein was obliged to defray its liability towards the arrears of rent qua the demised premises for escaping eviction is to be reckoned there-from. In accepting the above submission it would tantamount to an impermissible enlargement or extending the period of time within which the judgment debtor/petitioner herein was obliged to defray its liability towards arrears of rent to the decree holder/respondent herein qua the demised premises. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.