Back
1968 Supreme(Ori) 1
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
G. K. Misra And S. K. Ray, JJ.
MANAKARANI HAZRA - Appellant
Versus
MOHINDER SINGH JAGGI - Respondent
O. J. C. 106 Of 1964
Decided On : JANUARY 02, 1968
B.Mohapatra, B.N.PATNAIK, C.V.MURTHY, RANJIT MOHANTY, S.C.Ghose
Headnote:
HOUSE RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 7(1)(I) - SECTION 7(1)(III) - SECTION 7(2) - WILFUL DEFAULT - MATERIAL IMPAIRMENT OF VALUE OR UTILITY OF HOUSE - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - SCOPE AND AMBIT OF JURISDICTION AND POWER OF COURT - ERRORS OF LAW APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - REMAND.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent, damage to the house, and bona fide requirement. The House Rent Controller allowed the application, but the appellate court set it aside. The landlord filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the appellate court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellate court committed errors of law apparent on the face of the record in its findings on the grounds of eviction under Section 7(1)(i), 7(1)(iii), and 7(2) of the Act. The court found that the appellate court failed to properly consider the evidence and took into account inadmissible evidence. The court also held that the appellate court erred in not addressing itself to the question of whether the tenant's default was wilful and in not recording a clear finding on the issue of bona fide requirement.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was in wilful default in payment of rent? 2. Whether the tenant had committed acts of damage to the house that materially impaired its value or utility? 3. Whether the landlord required the house in good faith for his own occupation or use?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The onus is on the tenant to establish that the default in payment of rent was not wilful. If the default is committed intentionally or deliberately, it is a wilful default regardless of the reason why the default was intended. 2. The expression "material alterations" in its ordinary meaning would mean important alterations, such as those which materially or substantially change the front or the structure of the premises. 3. The expression ''good faith'' has been inserted obviously with a view to prevent the landlord from using the machinery of the' Act as device lor turning out a tenant under the cloak of "requiring it for his own use", though in reality for letting it out to another person on a more profitable basis.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the appellate court's order and remanded the case back to the appellate court for disposal in accordance with law. The appellate court was directed to record its findings on the specific points identified by the High Court after taking into consideration only the relevant and admissible evidence on record.
G. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) DECEASED Jaharilal was the owner of a residential house at Mangiabag bearing holding No. 103 in Ward No. 22 of the Cuttack Municipality. The house at present bearing Holding No. 120. He died on 16th of September, 1963 leaving behind the petitioners as his sole heirs. Jaharilal had let out the said premises to Mahindra singh Jaggi (Opp. 1) on a rental of Rs. 70 per month with effect from 16-8-1952 on the basis of a written agreement. The case of the petitioners as narrated in the writ application runs thus: opposite party No. 1, deliberately did not pay the rent of the premises from the third month of the tenancy. On the other hand, he filed an application before the House Rent Controller in House Rent Control Act case No. 11 of 1953 for fixation of fair rent. The Controller determined the rent at Rs. 33 per month. In appeal, it was raised to Rs. 60 per month by an order dated 24-1-1955. On 7th of November 1952, O. P. 1 removed the wall in between the two bed rooms of the building and converted the rooms into a shop room and opened a shop therein, in contravention of the terms of the tenancy, Jaharilal instituted Money Suit no. 96 of 1953 in the court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack for recovery of compensation for damages caused to the house. The suit was decreed with costs. On 28th of December, 1953. O. P. No. 1 without the knowledge and consent of Jaharilal made further additions and alternations. He demolished certain portions of the house, fixed collapsible gates and windows and caused heavy damages to the house. Jaharilal filed Title Suit No 6 of 1954 in the Court of the Munsif, First court, Cuttack for injunction restraining the O. P. No. 1 from causing further changes and damages to the house and for recovery of compensation. That suit was decreed with costs. O. P. No. 1 willfully defaulted to pay rent. Jaharilal filed Money Suit No. 71 of 1955 in the court of the Munsif, First Court. Cuttack for recovery of house rent from november 1952 to February. 1953. It was decreed with costs. Jaharilal instituted Title Suit No. 238 of 1955 in the court of the Munsif, First court. Cuttack against O. P. No. 1 for eviction and recovery of house rent and damages. As before the conclusion of the case, the Orissa house Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) had come into force, the prayer for eviction was not held to be maintainable in civil court and accordingly only a decree for recovery of rent and cost was passed Again jaharilal had to institute Money Suit No. 664 of 1958 in the court of the munsif, Second Court, Cuttack for recovery of house rent The Munsif decreed the suit but did not allow costs holding that the tenant was not to blame for non-payment of house rent. Jaharilal preferred Money appeal No. 40 of 1959 against the order refusing cost and the appeal was allowed on 12-8-61. Jaharilal filed an application before the House rent Controller, Cutlack in H. R. C. Case No. 8 of 1959 for eviction of the o. P. No. 1 on grounds that the O. P. No. 1 was a wilful defaulter in making payment of rent, had damaged the house, used it for purpose other than that for which it was let out without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, materially impaired the value and utility of the house and the landlord required the house in good faith for the occupation of himself and members of his family. The application for eviction was allowed on 31-12-62 by the House Rent Controller. O. P. No. 1 was directed to put the landlord in possession of the house within 15 days of the receipt of the order. O. P. No. 1 preferred an appeal in House Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 1963 before the A, D. M. (Executive)Cuttack. He by his judgment dated 15-7-1963 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of' eviction passed by the House Rent Controller. Though in the petition for eviction, there was no prayer for fixation of fail' rent, the A. D. M. (Ex.) fixed the rent at Rs. 80 per month payable from 1-8-1963. Against this or
