Decided on April 04,1991



- (1.) Applicant Roshan Lal Chauhan is a tenant in the ground floor of 'Overvale Cottage', Shimla, since the year 1980. The premises were later purchased by the respondent-landlord, Roshan Lal Pokta in April 1982. The landlord made an applica-tion on 5/05/1984, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (briefly, "the Act") seeking ejectment of the tenant on the basis of personal need. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on 28/06/1986. The tenant filed an appeal against this order in which a caveat petition was filed by the landlord under Section 148-A CPC.
(2.) The matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority on 12/06/1987. A statement was made by the tenant on that date, inter alia, saying that he had entered into a compromise with the landlord that the order of eviction shall not be executed by the landlord till 31/03/1989, and that he (tenant) undertook to deliver vacant posses-sion of the premises on or before 31/03/1989. It was also stated by the tenant that he conceded that the premises were bona fide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Further, that in case he violated the undertaking given by him to deliver vacant possession to the landlord on or before 31/03/1989, he would be liable for contempt of Court. The landlord also made a statement saying that he had no objection if the tenant was given time up to 31/03/1989, to vacate the premises provided the undertaking given by the tenant, as men-tioned in his statement, was accepted by the Court.
(3.) The Appellate Authority passed an order on 12/06/1987 itself wherein the essential facts were noticed and it was said that : "He (meaning thereby the tenant) has further undertaken ....... to deliver the vacant possession to the landlord on or before 31-3-1989. He has given the undertaking to the landlord as also to the Court and the court has hereby accepted his undertaking. It has been made clear to the tenant that in case he violates the undertaking given by him to the Court, he shall be liable for contempt of court. In view of the abovesaid compromise between the parties, it is ordered that the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller (I), Shimla, shall not be executed on or before 31-3-1989, provided the tenant abides by the undertaking given by him to the Court. It is clarified that in case the tenant violates any of the undertakings given by him, the order passed by the learned Rent Control-ler (1), Shimla, shall become executable at once." 3A. On 17/06/1988, this Court decided the case of Gauri Shankar v. Tilak Raj Sharma, Civil Revision No. 224 of 1982, (1988 (2) Rent CR 279). In it, it was held that any proceedings initiated by a landlord for regaining possession of a demised premises on the ground of personal bona fide need by an application before expiry of a period of five years from the date of acquisition by him of the premises by transfer are void. The tenant filed an application dated 6/03/1989, before the Appellate Authority under Section 151 CPC for discharging him from the statement dated 12/06/1987, given in the caveat application aforesaid. This application was filed on 9/03/1989. In paragraph 6 of this application it was said that : "......under the Act of 1987, no petition can be filed by a landlord for his bona fide requirement within five years of the purchase of the premises. As submitted above, the premises in question were purchased by the landlord on 12-4-1982 whereas the petition was filed on 5-5-84 i.e. within 5 years of the purchase,. as such the same was not main-tainable." And, in paragraph 8 that : "......for the reason of the enforcement of the Act of 1987, the applicant-tenant is not required to vacate the premises. It is also submitted that there was no lawful compro-mise before this Hon'ble Tribunal in which the Eviction Order could be passed." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.