Back
Himachal Pradesh High Court
M. H. BEG,CHET RAM THAKUR
Rajkumari Soni - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 06/01/1971
EAST PUNJAB URBAN RENT RESTRICTION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 2(I) - TENANT - ARTICLE 299 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CONTRACT EXECUTION - VALIDITY OF CONTRACT - RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT - ESTOPPEL - GOVERNMENT LIABILITY - ORAL AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZED PERSON - DELEGATION OF POWER - VOID CONTRACT - PAYMENT OF MONEY AS COMPENSATION - RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLADY AND TENANT - REMEDIES AGAINST ACTUAL OCCUPANTS - SECTION 13(2) OF THE ACT - APPLICABILITY - ADMISSION OF TENANCY - BINDING EFFECT - ERRONEOUS ADMISSION - CONCLUSION: NO TENANCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Smt. Raj Kumari Soni, filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of Dr. D.D. Arora and Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondents, Union of India and Himachal Pradesh Administration, pleaded that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the tenant was the Union of India and not the respondents impleaded in the application. The Rent Controller held that the relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the parties and ordered the respondents to vacate the premises. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller, holding that there was no valid lease in favor of the appellants and the relationship of landlady and tenant did not come into existence between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract was oral and was apparently against the explicit provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. It held that the Government could not be bound by an agreement entered into by an unauthorized person, especially when it did not conform to the requirements of Article 299(I) of the Constitution. The court also held that the payment of money to Smt. Raj Kumari Soni by the Government was not made as rent but as compensation for use and occupation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents (Union of India and Himachal Pradesh Administration) are tenants within the meaning of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949? 2. Whether the oral agreement entered into by the Deputy Director and the Assistant Director of Health Services Himachal Pradesh with the approval of the Director of Health Services is valid and binding on the Government? 3. Whether the payment of money to Smt. Raj Kumari Soni by the Government was made as rent or as compensation for use and occupation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'tenant' under Section 2(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 includes any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land. 2. Article 299(I) of the Constitution of India mandates that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or a State shall be expressed to be made by the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and shall be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorize. 3. An oral agreement entered into by an unauthorized person, which does not conform to the requirements of Article 299(I) of the Constitution, is void and cannot be ratified by the Government. 4. Payment of money to a landlord by the Government may be made as compensation for use and occupation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, rather than as rent.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
CHET RAM THAKUR, J : This revision petition had been referred to the Division Bench by Hardayal Hardy, Judge, Delhi High Court, in August 1970, when that High Court had its jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh. The point referred to is whether the said respondents (Union of India and Himachal Pradesh Administration), now substituted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, vide order, dated 8-4-1971 are tenants within the meaning of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949?
2. Smt. Raj Kumari Soni is the owner of a building known as "Onkar Lodge" at Simla. On 9-4-1965, Dr.D.D. Arora, Deputy Director of Health Services and Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya, Assistant Director of Health Services, with the approval of the Director of Health Services. Himachal Pradesh, took from the petitioner the lower flat of the aforesaid building on a monthly rental of Rs.150/- On 13-1-1966, Smt. Raj Kumari Soni filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of Dr. D.D. Arora and Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondents paid Rs.567-10 Paise as rent unto 28-1-1966 at the rate of Rs.53/- per month and the petitioner accepted the same under protest. The respondents had also pleaded that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the tenant was the Union of India and not the respondents impleaded in the application. It was on that basis that the application was withdrawn by her on 2-5-1967.
3. On 22-7-1967 the landlady filed a fresh application, out of which this reference on a revision petition has arisen. The petitioner alleged that a sum of Rs.3,482-90 Paise was due from the respondents on account of rent from 11-4-1965 to 10-7-1967. The respondents in their reply dated 21-12-1967 admitted that certain offices were located in the premises in question but that the contract was not made as envisaged by Article 299 of the Constitution of India and there being no valid regular lease, the petition was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that they had not agreed to pay the rent as calculated by the Punjab Provincial Division (Sic).
4. The Rent Controller held that Dr. D.D. Arora and Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya admittedly the employees of the respondents took the premises in question from the petitioner and that the tenancy in the previous proceedings was also admitted by the two doctors; that those premises were admittedly used for the offices of the respondents. In view of this, he held that the relationship of landlady and tenant existed between the parties. Further it was held that the rent was Rs.150/-per month. The rent being not paid on the first date of hearing the respondents were liable for eviction and he accordingly passed an order on 24-7-1968 directing the respondents to vacate the premises in one month's time.
5. The respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same pleas were reiterated by the appellant. The main plea was that the agreement was in contravention of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution and as such the relationship of landlady and tenant did not exist between the parties. The Appellate Authority observed that it is not disputed that no contract was made between the President and the petitioner in respect of the lease in dispute. Relying on K.P. Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 203 and Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1962 SC 554, he held that there was no contract between the appellant and the respondents transferring the lease rights in favour of the appellant as required by Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Further he held that there was no valid lease in favour of the appellants and the relationship of landlady and tenant did not come into existence between the parties. The respondents in their reply have admitted that there are offices located in the premises mentioned in the petition. The appellant may be bound to pay compensation to the petitioner for use of
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
