Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 1768
2012 (2) RCR(Civ) 193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
Madan Lal - Petitioner(s)
Versus
Nirmal Kumari and Ors - Respondent(s)
CR No.5638 of 2011
Decided on: 28.9.2011
Madan Lal - Petitioner(s)
Versus
Nirmal Kumari Sharma and Ors - Respondent(s)
CR No.4605 of 2011(O&M)
Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate for the respondent(s).
The judgment emphasizes the importance of due process and the right to be heard before eviction, highlighting the inherent powers of the court to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
Ejectment Proceedings - Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 - Section 13 - Summary: The judgment disposed of two revision petitions arising from ejectment proceedings under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The court upheld the order of evicting the petitioner-tenant and granted two years for vacating the premises, subject to clearing arrears of rent and paying agreed rent monthly.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment disposed of two revision petitions arising from ejectment proceedings under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The petitioner-tenant was evicted by the Rent Controller, and subsequent appeals and applications were filed by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the order of evicting the petitioner-tenant and granted two years for vacating the premises, subject to clearing arrears of rent and paying agreed rent monthly.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the eviction order, non-payment of arrears of rent, and the withdrawal of the civil suit for rent recovery by the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the eviction order was justified but highlighted the lack of due process in issuing the warrant of possession without notice to the tenant. The court also emphasized the need for the judgment debtor to be heard before eviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders, restored the petitioner-tenant's status as of a certain date, and directed the respondents to put the petitioner back in possession. The court allowed both revision petitions and awarded costs to the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CR No.4605 of 2011 and 5638 of 2011 as both these petitions have arisen out of ejectment proceedings of the petitioner from the demised premises.
2. The respondent-Nirmal Kamari initially filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”). Later on, respondent No.2 was also impleaded as party vide order dated 27.10.2009 as she had purchased the suit property from Nirmal Kumarirespondent No.1. The ejectment order was passed against the petitioner-tenant by the Rent Controller on 5.5.2003. Appeal preferred by him was accepted by the Court of Sh. H.S. Bhangoo, the then Appellate Authority, Panchkula vide his order dated 8.8.2003. However, in Civil Revision No.454 of 2004 filed on behalf of the respondent-landlord vide order dated 4.3.2008, the case was remanded back to the Appellate Authority. Ultimately the Appellate Authority, Panchkula upheld the order of the Rent Controller of evicting the petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 16.9.2008.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court vide CR No.5461 of 2008. The said revision petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 2.3.2010 which reads as follows:-
“Present: Mr. Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
S.D. Anand, J.
On consensual basis, the revision petition is dismissed on merits thereof. On further consensual basis the petitioner-tenant shall have two years time from today to vacate the tenanted premises subject of course to his clearing the arrears of rent within two months from today and further that he will keep on paying the agreed rent by the 10th of every calendar month.
Disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
S.D. Anand
Judge”
4. It may also be noticed that the respondent-landlord also filed a civil suit for recovery of rent w.e.f. April, 1992 upto June, 1996 and from the month of January, 2003 upto August, 2003, the said civil suit was contested by the petitioner and when the case was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment, it was withdrawn by the respondent-landlord on 20.7.2009.
5. It may also be noticed that the petitioner-tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller, Panchkula for depositing the arrears of rent in compliance of the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by this Court in CR. No.5461 of 2008 whereas the respondent-landlord also filed an application before the Rent Controller to direct the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to pay the arrears of rent as calculated by the Rent Controller and further affirmed by this Court. The said application of the respondent-landlord was held not maintainable in its present form vide order dated 29.11.2010. The relevant paragraph of the said order reads thus:
“Thus, it is observed that the present proceeding had been initiated by the tenant merely to deposit his monthly rent in this court and the landlord did not have any locus standi to seek eviction of the tenant in the present form, without adopting the due process of law. Thus, as far as the filing of the application by landlord Smt. Nirmal Kumari Sharma and another is concerned is held to be not maintainable in its present form and they are directed to adopt appropriate procedure to seek ejectment of the tenant Sh. Madan Lal appropriate procedure to seek ejectment of the tenant Sh. Madan Lal from the tenanted premises for non payment of arrears of rent, within two months as ordered by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, it is also pertinent to mention that Hon'ble Court has not directed the trial Court to order eviction of the tenant straightway on filing of an application by the landlord, in its order dated 2.3.2010. Therefore, it is observed that necessary action could h
