Back
1993 Supreme(HP) 56
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
DEVINDER GUPTA
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
DUNI CHAND SHARMA - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 120 of 1991
Decided On : 03/31/1993
For the petitioner(s):Sh. P. A. Sharma, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel. For the respondent(s):Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
A person can only be considered a specified landlord under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 if they are entitled to receive rent from the premises on their own account and are a landlord qua the premises and the tenant at the time of their retirement.
Headnote:
SPECIFIED LANDLORD - URBAN RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 2(1), 15(1), 15(2) - SUMMARY EVICTION - INTERPRETATION OF DEFINITION OF SPECIFIED LANDLORD - REQUIREMENT OF LANDLORD STATUS AT TIME OF RETIREMENT - APPLICABILITY OF SUMMARY EVICTION PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an order of the Rent Controller evicting him from the premises occupied by him. The respondent, the landlord, claimed to be a specified landlord under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (the Act) and sought eviction on the ground that he required the premises for his own residence after retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent was not a specified landlord as defined under the Act because he was not entitled to receive rent from the premises and was not a landlord qua the premises or the petitioner at the time of his retirement. Therefore, he was not entitled to seek the petitioner's eviction under the summary eviction provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was a specified landlord under the Act. 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to seek the petitioner's eviction under the summary eviction provisions of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of a specified landlord under the Act requires two things: (a) the person must be entitled to receive rent from the premises on his own account, and (b) the person must be holding or have held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. 2. The right to seek eviction of a tenant under both clauses (1) and (2) of section 15 of the Act can only be availed by a specified landlord who is a specified landlord qua the premises as well as qua the tenant on the relevant date, which is the date of retirement. 3. In this case, the respondent was not a landlord either qua the premises or qua the petitioner on the date of his retirement, which was the date of accrual of cause of action to him to seek the tenant's eviction in summary jurisdiction. Therefore, he was not entitled to seek the petitioner's eviction under the summary eviction provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the respondent's application as not maintainable.
Devinder Gupta, J.—This revision arises out of an order passed on 1st June, 1991 by Rent Controlle, Shimla allowing the respondents application under section 15 of the H P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and ordering the eviction of the petitioner.
2. The admitted facts are that the premises in question comprising two rooms, one glazed verandah, kitchen, latrine and bath on the first floor of Ellingham Lodge, Cart Road, Shimla have been in occupation of foe petitioner through Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, H. R. Division, Ambala Cantt as tenant since 1969 pursuant to an agreement Ex. P-5. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was employed as a Lecturer in English language in Education Deptt. of Himachal Pradesh Government and retired on attaining the age of superannuation w. e. f. 31st of October, 1988. Premises in question were purchased by him from its previous owner Smt. Chander Kaur on 4th August, 1989,
3. Claiming himself to be a specified landlord, the respondent on 1st September, I989 presented a petition under section 15 of the Act seeking petitioners eviction on the ground that the premises in question are requires bonafide by him for the purpose of his residence. After having put in 28 years of service he retired on 31st of October, 1988 and purchased the premises from its previous owner for his bonafide use. He has been residing in the tenanted accommodation in Bansal Bhawan, Cart Road, Shimla, which accommodation he got on rent after surrendering government allotted accommodation. The rented accommodation is un-suitable and insufficient for his requirement and as such, his requirement was bonafide.
4. After the petitioner had been granted the requisite leave to contest the petition and reply was filed, the Rent Controller proceeded to record evidence of the parties and allowed the landlords petition holding the respondent to be a specified landlord, the premises to be residential and need of the respondent as bonafide. It is this order of Rent Controller which is under challenge in this revision.
5. The primary question arising for determination is as to whether on the admitted facts, the respondent can be held to be a specified landlord, so as to avail the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act for seeking petitioners eviction from the premises in question in summary jurisdiction.
6. Specified landlord has been defined in sub-clause (1) of section 2 of the Act to mean a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.
7. On such a specified landlord, the Act confers a right to recover immediate possession of the premises. Possession can be obtained on two eventualities, one of which is provided for in sub-section (I) of section 15 and the other in sub-section (2) of section
15. Relevant portion of section 15 is extracted as follows;— "15 (1) Where a person who being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Central or State Government or local authority, as the case may be, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he or his spouse or dependent child owns, within the urban area, residential accommodation there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such a person notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or any other contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, right to recover immediate the possession of any premises let out by him : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring a right the person, who himself or whose spouse or dependen
