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

1988 Supreme(HP) 22

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.K.MEHROTRA
GAURI SHANKAR - Appellant
Versus
TILAK RAJ SHARMA - Respondent
C. R. Nos. 224 of 1982; 153, 154 and 155 of 1982 and No. 102 of 1981
Decided On : 06/17/1988

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s G. C. Gupta, S. R. Sharma, Devinder Gupta, and Miss Kamlesh Sharma, Advocates, for the landlords. For the Respondents:M/s K. D. Sood, D. K. Khanna and Subhash Punshi, Advocates, for the tenants.

The bar on the application for eviction within 5 years of the acquisition of the property by transfer is absolute and impinges upon the competence of the Rent Controller to entertain the proceedings.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL - Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 - Section 14(6) - Application for eviction of tenant on ground of personal occupation - Bar on application within 5 years of acquisition of property by transfer - Retrospective effect - Applicability to pending proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

Landlord purchased the building on June 15, 1972, and filed an application for eviction of the tenant under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, on the ground of personal occupation. The application was filed within 5 years of the landlord's acquisition of the property by transfer. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority allowed the application and ordered the eviction of the tenant.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that section 14(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, which was introduced by the 1987 amendment, is retrospective in operation and applies to pending proceedings. The court further held that the bar on the application for eviction within 5 years of the acquisition of the property by transfer is absolute and impinges upon the competence of the Rent Controller to entertain the proceedings. Therefore, the application for eviction made by the landlord before the expiry of the 5-year period was incompetent and the entire proceedings were void.

Issues: 1. Whether section 14(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, is retrospective in operation and applies to pending proceedings? 2. Whether the bar on the application for eviction within 5 years of the acquisition of the property by transfer is absolute and impinges upon the competence of the Rent Controller to entertain the proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, is retrospective in operation and applies to pending proceedings. This is because the provision is clear and unambiguous, and it does not contain any saving clause. 2. The bar on the application for eviction within 5 years of the acquisition of the property by transfer is absolute and impinges upon the competence of the Rent Controller to entertain the proceedings. This is because the provision uses imperative language and says that no application for the recovery of possession of the premises shall be made unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of acquisition of the premises by transfer.

Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the tenant was allowed, and the landlord's application for eviction was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V. K. Mehrotra, A. C. J.—This and the connected revisions (being Civil Revision Nos. 153, 154, 155 of 1982 and 102 of 1981) under section 21 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, (Act No. 23 of 1971) (for brief, "the Act") raise a common question of law. They were hear together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience, the facts of the case giving rise to Civil Revision No. 224 of 1982 are being mentioned.

2. The premises in dispute is the upper storey of house No. 39/1, J.C. Building (Kuthiala building) Middle Bazar, Simla. Applicant Gauri Shankar is its tenant. Respondent, Tilak Raj Sharma, purchased the building on June 15, 1972. He was living in the lower portion of house No. 39/1 from before as a tenant. On March 18, 1975 a petition under section 14 of the Act was filed by Tilak Raj Sharma seeking ejectment of Gauri Shankar, inter alia, on the ground that he needed the upper storey of the house in the tenancy of Gauri Shankar for his personal occupation. Section 14 (3) (a) (i) permits the landlord to apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, in the case of a residential building, on the ground that he requires it for his own occupation. Evidence was partly recorded before the Controller in November 1976. Recording of evidence on behalf of the landlord was concluded in November, 1979. In January 1980, the evidence on behalf of the tenant was recorded. The Controller made an order on November 29, 1980 allowing the application and directing ejectment of the tenant. The appeal, which the tenant filed before the Appellate Authority, also failed. The Appellate Authority upheld the direction for ejectment made by the Controller, on August 13, 1982. The present revision was filed in this Court on September 7/8,1982. The tenant seeks the setting aside of the order passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge, Simla). During the pendency of the revision the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) was enacted. It received the assent of the President on October 10, 1987. By section 1 (3), the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on November 17, 1971. This is the date with effect wherefrom the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, was enforced on account of its publication in the Extra-ordinary Gazette of that date.

3. Section 14 (3) underwent a change. In the 1987 Act it reads thus: "14(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession — (a) in the case of a residential building, if— (i) he requires it for his own occupation : Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned: Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area; (ii).................................................................................. (iii).................................................................................. (iv).................................................................................. (4)............................................................................................... (5)............................................................................................... Sub-section (6) was added: (6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall be made under this section on the ground specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of such acquisition. (7)...............................................................................................

4. Section 34 then provides thus:— “34. Repeal and Savings.—(1) The Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, is hereby repealed. (2) N

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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