SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 769

2003(6) Supreme 25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, Shivaraj V. Patil and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Vinod Kumar -Petitioner/Appellant
versus
Prem Lata -Respondent
Review Petition (C) No. 436 of 2003
In
Civil Appeal No. 8444 of 2002
Decided on 19-8-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner/Appellant : R.P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Parmanand Gaur and Jamshed Bey, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Prem Malhotra and Rishi Malhotra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Expression to be calculated by the Controller in proviso to sub-section (i) of Section 13(2) Haryana Rent Control Act qualifies both arrears of rent and interest.

Headnote:Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973-Section 13(2)(i) proviso-Expression assessed by the Controller qualifies all three things i.e., arrears of rent, interest on such arrears and cost of application-Such order be an interim order which would be based on summary enquiry leading to formation of prima facie view-Decision in Rakesh Wadhawan s case laid down correct law and was re-affirmed.

       Held : On the plain language of the Haryana Act, the expression "to be calculated by the Controller" qualifies both the arrears of rent and interest. The succeeding expression "such costs of the application" is again qualified by the expression "if any, as may be allowed by the Controller". Thus the provision itself casts an obligation on the Controller to calculate and determine by its order (i) the arrears of rent; (ii) the interest; and (iii) the costs, quantifying the amount which should be paid or tendered by the tenant (at that stage) to comply with the proviso. The words calculated and allowed occurring in the proviso imply a duty cast on the Controller which has to be discharged judicially. Such determination will be only for the purpose of securing compliance by the tenant on the first date of hearing succeeding the date of order by the Controller, which order would be based on a summary enquiry and would obviously be subject to final determination by the Controller at the end of the regular full-fledged enquiry. Thus it is not correct to say that the provision does not contemplate an enquiry, nor is it correct to say that such an interpretation would result in the holding of a full-fledged enquiry on the first date of hearing, which is not possible. (Para 6)

       

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Proceedings for eviction were initiated under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act for short) and culminated in favour of the landlord, directing the tenant to be evicted from the premises in his occupation, on the finding that he had not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the rented premises. The tenant preferred Appeal by Special Leave. By judgment dated 16.12.2002 this Court allowed the tenant s appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the authorities below and directed the case to be sent back to the Controller for hearing and decision afresh in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 440. This petition for review of the judgment dated 16.12.2002 seeks to question the correctness of the law laid down by this Court in Rakesh Wadhawan s case.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The principal submission, rather the only one, made by the learned senior counsel for the Review-petitioner is that two earlier decisions of this Court, namely, M/s. Rubber House vs. M/s. Excelsior Needle Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1989) 2 SCC 413 and Rajinder Kumar Joshi vs. Veena Rani (1990) 4 SCC 526, were not brought to the notice of this Court while deciding Rakesh Wadhawan s case and, therefore, Rakesh Wadhawan s case does not lay down the correct law. All the three decisions, namely, the decisions in Rakesh Wadhawan s case (supra), M/s. Rubber House s case (supra) and Rajendra Kumar Joshi s case (supra), are two-Judges Bench decisions and, therefore, the matter has been placed for consideration by a three-Judges Bench.

3. In Rakesh Wadhawan s case, the decree for eviction was passed under Section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent & Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act for short). It is, therefore, necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the two Acts. The same are extracted and re-produced hereunder:

 

PUNJAB ACT HARYANA ACT

S.13. Eviction of tenants.-(1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section, or in pursuance of an order made under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 as subsequently amended.(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied-(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by 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 on the first hearing of the applications for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at 6% per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid;X X Xthe 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 given 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." S.13. Eviction of tenants.-(1) A














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top