1. Eviction proceedings under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, regarding the recovery of residential premises by a landlord for own occupation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 840
1999(7) Supreme 514
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
P.K. Vasudeva -Appellant
versus
Zenobia Bhanot -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6325 of 1998
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6326-27 & 815 of 1999
Decided on 11-8-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : K.K. Mohan, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mahabir Singh, Rajeev Kataria, Gautam Awasthi, Pradeep Bhanot, Advocates.
Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act allows a specified landlord to recover possession of the entire residential building or parts of it for their own occupation, rather than being restricted to evicting only one tenant.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 151 - Recall of order-Validity of - Revisional order of High Court rejecting landlords petition during pendency of SLP-Supreme Court deciding issue in favour of landlord-Execution petition before Rent Controller-Dismissal for default-Subsequent review petition to recall High Court s order, to recall its order in view of Supreme Court s decision-High Court recalling its order on concession of counsel and remanding case for decision on merit-Parties appearing before Rent Controller and Rent Controller deciding case in favour of landlord-Tenants SLP challenging recall order contending that High Court s order already attained finality and therefore could not have been recalled-Not tenable-Recall order stood exhausted when parties appeared before Rent Controller and Rent Controller decided matter-Once counsel for tenant conceded before High Court that revision petition required remand it is no longer open to tenants to challenge recall order.
Held : The sequence of the events shows that the order of Learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 1.5.97 which was passed on the concession of the counsel for the appellants was acted upon when the Rent Control Officer decided the matter after remand. The order dated 1.5.97 which was passed by the High Court on agreement of the parties stood exhausted when the parties appeared before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller decided the matter and thereafter there remained nothing to be challenged. If the appellants wanted they could have promptly challenged the order dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court and obtained stay of remand order. The appellant having chosen not to do so, it is too late in the day to challenge the order dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court based on agreement of the parties. Once the counsel for the tenants conceded before the High Court that the revision petitions required remand, it is no longer open to the tenants to contend that the order dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court could not have been passed. This is not all. The appellant filed review petitions against the order dated 1.5.97 recalling the earlier order but the same was rejected. This order at no stage was challenged. We are, therefore, of the opinion that seeing the fact and correctness of the case it is not open to the appellant to question the order dated 1.5.97 passed by the High Court. (Para 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a prior order of dismissal attained finality and whether the eviction petitions were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. A remand order passed on the concession of counsel and acted upon cannot be challenged belatedly; eviction petitions were filed within the limitation period. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. An order passed by a court on the agreement or concession of parties, subsequently acted upon, cannot be questioned at a later stage. (Para 8 )
5. Appeals dismissed; tenants granted time to vacate premises subject to payment of arrears and filing of an undertaking. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Does Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act allow a landlord to recover the entire building or only a portion?
Section 13A provides a special right to recover a residential building for own occupation. Where the building is let out in part or parts, the landlord has the option to recover possession of the whole building or specific parts thereof. (Para 5 )
7. Can a party challenge a court order that was passed based on the concession of their counsel and subsequently acted upon?
No. Once a counsel concedes to an order, such as a remand, and that order is acted upon by the parties and the lower court, it is too late to challenge the validity of that order. (Para 8 )
8. How is the limitation period evaluated for eviction petitions filed under Section 13A of the Act?
The court evaluates the date of filing of the petitions against the statutory requirements of the Act to determine if the applications were submitted within the prescribed timeframe. (Para 9 )
Judgment
V.N. Khare, J.-Since common question of fact and law are involved in these civil appeals and as such they were being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In all these appeals the appellant are the tenants and the respondent is the landlady. The respondent herein owns a premises in the city of Chandigarh. There were four separate tenements in the said building, two of which are occupied by the two appellants herein. In the 1975, the husband of respondent landlady who was a government servant retired from service and on 5.1.85 he died. The State Legislature of Punjab amended the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). By the aforesaid amendment a new Section 13A was added in the Act. The aforesaid Section 13A reads as under :
“13A. Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indication the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building, as the case may be, for his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts.”
3. By Notification dated 15.12.1986 Section 13A was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. After this provision was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the respondent landlady filed four separate applications before the Rent Control Officer, Chandigarh seeking eviction of the tenants under Section 13A of the Act. By an order dated 27th January, 1989 the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against one of the tenants, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill and subsequently on 15.3.89 the Rent Controller also passed an order of eviction against another tenant Bhupinder Singh Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill and Shri Bhupinder Singh preferred two separate revisions before the High Court against the orders of the Rent Controller directing for their ejectment. The High Court took the view that under the second proviso to Section 13A the landlord is entitled to recover possession of only one portion of the building and other tenants cannot be evicted. Accordingly the landlady was given an option to choose any one of the four tenants for eviction. Accordingly the revision was allowed. Consequent upon the order of the High Court the landlady gave her choice for eviction of Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Gill and therefore she was evicted from that portion of the building which she was occupying as a tenant. This is the first chapter of litigation.
4. On 20th December, 1989 the Rent Controller following the decision of the High Court rejected the applications of landlady seeking eviction against the present appellants, namely, S/Shri Surinder Sharma and P.K. Vasudeva. The landlady preferred two separate revisions before the High Court challenging the orders of the Rent Controller rejecting her applications for eviction of the aforesaid two tenants. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, he was of the view that the question which arose in the case required consideration by a Division Bench. Consequently the question was referred to a Div
