NAND DEO PANDEY Vs. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-23
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on November 12,1990

NAND DEO PANDEY Appellant
VERSUS
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Fathima Beevi, J. - (1.)The appeal by special leave arises from the proceedings for eviction under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act). S. 13(2) of the Act enables the landlord of a building in possession of a tenant to seek eviction on an application for direction in that behalf on anyone of the grounds provided thereunder. If the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from the tenant in respect of the building within 15 days after expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession as provided in Cl. (i) of sub-see. (2) of S. 13 of the Act. S. 13 of the Act so far as it is material reads as under:-
"13. Eviction of tenants.-(I)A tenant in possession of a building or a rented land shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied,-

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of, the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable: Provided that if the tenant, within a period of fifteen days of the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Controller, at 8 per cent per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid:

Provided further that the landlord shall not be entitled to claim arrears of rent for a period exceeding three years immediately preceding the date of application under the provisions of the Act;

(ii) **********

(a) and (b) **********

(iii) to (v) **********

the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application:

Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate.

3. to 6**********"

(2.)Puran Chand, the second respondent, herein is the tenant in possession of a shop building owned by Smt.. Parmeshwari Devi. An application was filed by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi against her son-in-law, Ram Kumar, under S. 13(2) of the Act for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent alleging that Ram Kumar was in possession of the shop in question as tenant. While Ram Kumar conceded the claim, Puran Chand got himself impleaded in the proceedings and contested the matter asserting that he was the direct tenant in possession of the building and there had been no arrears of rent. The Controller dismissed the application finding that, Ram Kumar was not the tenant and the second respondent is in possession as tenant and holding the view that the landlord could not be allowed to seek an ejectment order through dubious means by arraying only the person with whom there existed no relationship as landlord and tenant. The appellate authority confirmed the order. The revision preferred by the landlord was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants are the legal representatives of Smt. Rameshwari Devi.
(3.)Shri Rajendra Sachhar, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the scope of the relevant provisions in the Act in rejecting the application and in a case where the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent as required under the proviso to Cl. (i) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act, the ground of non-payment of rent entitling the landlord to an order of ejectment is clearly proved. It is, therefore, submitted that when the second respondent has not paid the rent for the period in question even during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellants are entitled to an order in their favour. According to the learned counsel, it is not necessary for the appellants to specifically. allege that the second respondent was the tenant or that he defaulted the payment of rent and seek an order of ejectment against him by an amendment of the application for granting such relief and the view held by the High Court to the contrary is erroneous.
;


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