Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 171 (HP)

Thakur Dass v. Manjit Singh

2016-03-02

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral). 1. Challenge herein is to an order dated 9.12.2005, passed by learned Rent Controller, in Execution Petition No.9 of 2003/1994, whereby the execution petition has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The petitioners are landlords. The demised premises belonging to them is located over a portion of land entered in Khata No.257 min, Khatauni No.270 min, Khasra No.418, measuring 13 kanals 9 marlas, situated in Tika Seri (Nadaun), Mauza Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The respondent tenant herein was inducted as tenant in the demised premises on the payment of Rs.60/- per month as rent. An agreement to this effect was executed on 18.11.1982. The respondent allegedly stopped to pay the rent from December, 1989. Also that the respondent-tenant being in arrears of rent and that the demised premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the eviction of the respondent-tenant was sought by filing an application under Section 14(2)(c) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ in the Court of learned Rent Controller (2), Hamirpur. 3. The respondent-tenant in response to the eviction petition has submitted that the demised premises is in good condition, hence is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As regards arrears of rent, it is submitted that he is ready and willing to pay the same to the petitioners. 4. On such pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged? OPA. 2) Whether the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and require immediate rebuilding as alleged? OPA. 3) Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller after having taken on record the evidence of the parties and on appreciation of the same has, ordered the eviction of the respondent-tenant only on the ground that he is in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.2,220/- from December, 1989 till 31st December, 1992. In the event of the said amount is deposited in the Court within 30 days, the respondent tenant could have not been evicted from the demised premises. The memo of costs was ordered to be prepared accordingly. 6. In the event of the said amount is deposited in the Court within 30 days, the respondent tenant could have not been evicted from the demised premises. The memo of costs was ordered to be prepared accordingly. 6. The petitioners-landlords have agitated the matter further before the Appellate Authority under the Act at Hamirpur by filing an appeal, however, the appeal was ultimately sought to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn, of course with liberty reserved to the petitioners to raise the objection in the executing Court as to whether the respondent-tenant was liable to be evicted due to omission on his part in not depositing the arrears of interest and costs of the proceedings within the stipulated period. Consequently, the petitioners landlords have preferred the execution petition and raised the question that since the respondent-tenant has failed to deposit the amount due and payable towards arrears of rent in terms of the order passed by learned Rent Controller, therefore, he is to be evicted from the demised premises. 7. Learned Executing Court after taking on record the version of the respondent-tenant and framing issues as well as taking on record the evidence as produced by the parties on both sides has, however, dismissed the execution petition on the ground that in the order of eviction only a sum of Rs.2,220/- towards arrears of rent was required to be deposited by the respondent tenant and as he has deposited the same within the stipulated period, therefore, he cannot be evicted from the demised premises. This order has been assailed before this Court in this petition on the grounds inter alia that the same is against the settled legal principles of law and also the law laid down by this Court in Wazir Chand v. Ambaka Rani, 2005(2) Shim.L.C. 498 . 8. Having gone through the record and taking into consideration the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners-landlords as well as respondent tenant, it would not be improper to conclude that learned Rent Controller has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the execution petition for the reasons that from the order of eviction it is crystal clear that the respondent-tenant was required to deposit only a sum of Rs.2,220/- towards the arrears of rent and there is no direction to deposit the same alongwith interest or costs of the petition. 9. 9. No doubt, the memo of costs has been ordered to be prepared, but the same was prepared in accordance with the relief granted by learned Rent Controller. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.2,220/- was arrears of rent, the same was deposited by the respondent-tenant within the stipulated period. The statement of Naib Nazir of the Court examined by the respondent-tenant can also be pressed into service in this regard. When there was no specific direction to deposit the arrears towards rent alongwith interest and costs, the respondent was required to deposit only a sum of Rs.2,220/- within the stipulated period. No doubt the amount of Rs.178/- has also been deposited by him, of course beyond the stipulated period and this amount is still lying un-disbursed. The memo of costs includes stamps on petition, power of attorney, process fee and also subsistence allowance for witnesses. The pleader’s fee etc. has neither been deposited nor awarded. Since the petition has not been allowed with costs, therefore, this amount was not required to be deposited within the stipulated period. 10. Coming to the judgment of this Court in Wazir Chand’s case supra, the application thereof is only prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable to this case for the reason that the petition was disposed of on 2.1.1993 well before the judgment in question rendered by this Court. 11. In view of what has been said hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.