Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 275 (HP)

Hussan Lal v. Data Ram

2016-03-17

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
ORDER : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned Counsel, on instructions submits that the respondent-landlord is prepared to repair the damaged shutter of the demised premises himself and agreed even for the repair thereof by the petitioner-tenant also on adjustment of the expenditure incurred upon out of the rent due and payable. 2. In order to adjudicate the point in issue, it is desirable to take note of the facts in a nut shell. The petitioner herein is the tenant. He has been inducted as tenant by the respondent-landlord in a shop situated near HRTC workshop at Una on the monthly rent of Rs.192.50/-. The petitioner-tenant has filed an application under Section 13 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as Act in short) for seeking permission to carry out necessary repairs in the shop premises on the ground that the respondent-landlord has failed to repair the same for the last 22 years and even on receipt of the legal notice Ext.PW1/A dated 22.11.1999 also. The repair in the shop premises being sought is in the nature of repair of shutter thereof or its replacement. The cost of such repair/replacement at the time of filing of the rent petition i.e. April 2000 was Rs. 1000/-. 3. The respondent-landlord has however, contested the application on the ground such as estimate qua the expenditure to be incurred upon not prepared and that the petitioner-tenant is habitual defaulter being not paying the rent well in time. 4. In view of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller has framed the issues and after taking on record the evidence and on appreciation of the same has allowed the petition thereby allowing the petitioner-tenant to repair the damaged shutter of the shop premises on making an expenditure of Rs.1000/-. He was held entitled to the adjustment of the amount to be so spent out of the rent payable. Learned Appellate Authority however, in appeal has reversed the order passed by learned Rent Controller and dismissed the petition. The judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is under challenge before this Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that neither the provisions under the HP Urban Rent Control Act nor the evidence available on record is appreciated in its right perspective and as a result thereof wrong findings came to be recorded. 5. The judgment passed by the Appellate Authority is under challenge before this Court on the grounds, inter-alia, that neither the provisions under the HP Urban Rent Control Act nor the evidence available on record is appreciated in its right perspective and as a result thereof wrong findings came to be recorded. 5. If not shocking, it is painful to point out that a very petty matter is hanging fire for the last 16 years. The factum of the shutter of the shop premises got damaged some where in the year 1999 is satisfactorily established from the evidence available on record. The trial Court even has allowed the petitioner-tenant to repair/replace the same by spending a sum of Rs. 1000/-, however, learned Appellate Authority has reversed the well reasoned and detailed order in a slipshod manner and without application of mind. The factors such as the petitioner-tenant is habitual defaulter in the matter of payment of rent and that estimate has not been prepared unnecessarily weighed with Appellate Authority while reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller for the reasons that cost of repair/replacement of shutter was not such a high so as to warrant preparation of estimate thereof. It was a meagre amount that is Rs. 1000/- and at the most it is the petitioner-tenant who could have been ordered to bear the same without passing an order qua its adjustment out of the rent due and payable. 6. Anyhow, now the respondent-landlord is ready both way to repair/replace the shutter of the shop premises i.e. either himself or even by the petitioner-tenant also on adjustment of the rent due and payable. In view of the increase in the prices with the passage of time, this Court deem it appropriate that the respondent-landlord to repair/replace the shutter of the shop premises on his own expenses because in the event of the petitioner-tenant is permitted to do so, the possibility of dispute qua the cost of the repair/replacement is likely to arise. Therefore, the judgment passed by Learned Appellate Authority is hereby quashed and set aside. Therefore, the judgment passed by Learned Appellate Authority is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, on modification of the order passed by the Rent Controller, there shall be a direction to the respondent-landlord to repair/replace the shutter of the shop premises within a month from today, failing which the petitioner-tenant shall be at liberty to repair/replace the same at his own costs and to make the adjustment of the costs of such repair/replacement towards the future rent payable to the respondent-landlord. In the event of the shutter is not repaired/replaced by the respondent-landlord within the time granted, he shall pay costs to the petitioner-tenant to the tune of Rs. 3000/-. 7. With the aforesaid findings, the revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.