Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 191 (HP)

Kamal Kant Bhatia v. Roop Singh Verma

2017-03-16

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioners/respondents/tenants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners’) assailing the order of learned Rent Controller, Court No. 2, Shimla, dated 03.03.2017, passed in application of the petitioners filed under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC, in Rent Case No. 128-2 of 15/14, titled as Shri Roop Singh Verma vs. Shri Kamal Kant Bhatia and Another, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the petitioners. As per the petitioners, the aforementioned petition was pending adjudication before the learned Rent Controller below for arrears rent w.e.f. June, 2009, till date at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Accordingly, issue No. 2 was framed by the learned Court below, though the amount of rent was contested by the petitioners. As per the petitioners, they have specifically averred before the learned Rent Controller below that in the month of October, 2007, they were inducted as tenants on monthly rental of Rs. 1800/- and w.e.f. October, 2010, rent was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is further contended that in the year 2014 the respondent (landlord) demanded exorbitant rent of Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 7,000/- per month, which they did not accept. Resultantly, the respondent blocked their water supply, which compelled the petitioners to resort to legal recourse by approaching the learned Rent Controller for restoration of water supply. As per the petitioners, the learned Rent Controller did not frame imperative issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties, thus they moved an application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for framing the following issues:- "Issue No. 1-A Whether the respondents have been inducted tenants in the demised premises in October, 2007 at the monthly rent of Rs. 1800/- which was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month w.e.f. October, 2010? Issue No. 2-B Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhance the rent exorbitantly in contravention of the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, where under only 10% rent can be enhanced after every three years, if so, its effects?" 3. However, the learned Rent Controller dismissed their application, hence the present petition. 3000/- per month w.e.f. October, 2010? Issue No. 2-B Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhance the rent exorbitantly in contravention of the provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, where under only 10% rent can be enhanced after every three years, if so, its effects?" 3. However, the learned Rent Controller dismissed their application, hence the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC was required to be allowed, as the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- “2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of rent w.e.f. June, 2009, till date Rs. 5000/- per month? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner requires the said accommodation bona-fide for his own personal use and occupation, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the present petition is not competent nor maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the petition has been filed with sole intention to harass the respondents, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the petition lakhs material particulars, as alleged? OPD 8. Relief.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further specifically averred that the learned Rent Controller has framed the issue assuming that the rent is Rs. 5,000/- per month and new issue was required to be framed so that the case of the parties can be adjudicated. 6. The learned Senior counsel for the respondent has argued that the issues framed did not determine rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- conclusively, as the petitioners while leading his evidence was fully knowing that the rent was Rs. 5000/- or less than Rs. 5,000/- as pleaded by them. It has been further averred that the parties have led their evidence on all the issues and now the Court is to determine the rate of rent on the basis of issue No. 2. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that without there being any specific issue, the findings could not be arrived at. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the records. 8. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that without there being any specific issue, the findings could not be arrived at. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the records. 8. It is on record that earlier also the petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to allow them to lead evidence, when their case to lead evidence was closed, and they got opportunity to lead evidence from this Hon’ble Court. Now the present petition has been maintained by the petitioners. 9. Apparently, issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 06.07.2015 and at that time no objection was raised by the petitioners qua non-framing of any specific issue. The petitioners firstly went on with leading their evidence and concluded the same on 12.01.2017. No application was filed for framing additional issues between the period 06.07.2015 to 12.01.2017 and the application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC was only filed when the case came up for final arguments. 10. It is well settled that when the parties know their case and they had led the evidence on all the aspects of the case on the basis of pleadings, then non-framing of any issue is not detrimental for the adjudication of the case. 11. In the instant case, the learned Rent Controller has framed the following issue inter-alia others: “2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of rent w.e.f. June, 2009, till date Rs. 5000/- per month? OPP” It means that if the petitioners prove that they are not in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and the respondent fails to rebut the evidence of the petitioners by leading cogent evidence to the effect that the rent is Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. June, 2009, and it was lesser, then the learned Court below will adjudicate the issue accordingly. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that the issue framed by the learned Rent Controller below is sufficient for adjudication of the lis inter se the parties and in the opinion of this Court no further issue is required to be framed. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that the issue framed by the learned Rent Controller below is sufficient for adjudication of the lis inter se the parties and in the opinion of this Court no further issue is required to be framed. The findings rendered by the learned Rent Controller below while deciding application of the petitioners filed under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC, calls for no interference as the findings cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. As the findings of the learned Rent Controller below are neither perverse nor against the confines of law and facts and also when the parties know their case fully and they lead their evidence knowing their case, thus issue No. 2 cannot be interpreted in the manner as the learned counsel for the petitioner has interpreted. Therefore, this Court finds that the present is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 13. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stands disposed of.