Back
2019 Supreme(Megh) 154
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, J.
Babulal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Sant Kumar Bajoria and Another - Respondents
CRP No. 14 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Paul, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Sen, Advocate.
Compliance with the judgment regarding the payment of rent and the settlement of prevailing rent is crucial to avoid eviction.
Headnote:
Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - [Title Suit No. 2 (H)/1983] - [Para 20, 21 of the judgment dated 06.11.2015] - The court found that the defendants were in occupation of the premises for several decades and should be given a chance to clear the arrears within a reasonable time. The prevailing rent was to be settled by both parties within three months, and the defendants were required to clear the arrears of rent and continue to pay the prevailing rent to avoid eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for eviction against the defendants on the grounds of bonafide personal requirement and default in payment of rent. The suit was initially dismissed but later allowed on appeal. The defendants were found to be defaulters and were given a chance to clear the arrears within a reasonable time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants should be given a chance to clear the arrears of rent within a reasonable time and continue to pay the prevailing rent to avoid eviction.
Issues: The issues included the compliance with the judgment regarding the payment of rent, the default in settling the prevailing rent, and the reasons for not settling the prevailing rent as required by the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with the judgment regarding the payment of rent and the settlement of prevailing rent to avoid eviction.
Final Decision: The executing court was directed to determine the compliance with the judgment and the reasons for not settling the prevailing rent. The warrant of execution was to remain in abeyance until the determination was finalized.
JUDGMENT :
1. The respondents, owners of the suit property filed a suit for eviction bearing Title Suit No. 2 (H)/1983 against the defendants (petitioner herein) before the court of Assistant District Judge, Shillong on two grounds, (i) for bonafide personal requirement and (ii) default in payment of rent. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.12.1988. Appeal preferred was allowed.
2. Aggrieved whereof, the respondents filed CRP No. 8 (SH)/1991 which was allowed and case was remanded back to the learned District Judge (Appellate Court) for fresh decision.
3. The Appellate Court decided the appeal afresh on 24.09.2008 and finding was recorded that the petitioners (defendants) were defaulters. Against said judgment, petitioners herein filed CRP No. 48 of 2013, which has been disposed of vide judgment dated 06.11.2015.
4. In para 20 of the said judgment it has been recorded, that the findings of the learned trial court as well as first Appellate Court for not accepting the ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement has attained finality.
5. In para 21 of the judgment it has been recorded that the defendants have been in occupation of the suit premises for the last several decades, they are going to be evicted only on the ground of default in payment of rent, they should in the interest of justice be given a chance to clear the arrears within a reasonable time, if they want to continue in possession of the suit premises. But shall pay the rent at the prevailing rate from January 2015. The prevailing rent shall be the average of the rent paid by the tenants of the neighbouring shops or tenanted premises. Further, it has been observed that both the parties shall settle the prevailing rent of the suit premises to be paid by the defendants within the period of three months from the date of judgment. The defendants were to clear the payment of rent at the prevailing rate as calculated and settled by the parties in the manner indicated, from the month of January 2015 and also the arrears of rent due prior to January 2015 at the old rate within a period of four months from the date of settlement of the prevailing rent of the suit premises and shall continue to pay the rent at the prevailing rate as calculated by the parties, if he continues to posses the suit premises. It has been made clear that in case the defendants fail to pay the arrears of rent within four months indicated above and also the current rent so calculated in the first week of every month on its becoming due, the defendants shall be evicted from the premises as per judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court.
6. Decree holder (respondents herein) have filed the petition for execution of the judgment and decree before the executing court projecting therein that the petitioners (Judgment-Debtors) have not paid the rent in compliance to the judgment. The Judgment-Debtors were put on notice, they have been given umpteen opportunities for filing their objections which they have not availed as is recorded in the order dated 24.04.2019.
7. The Judgment-Debtor No. 6 filed an application questioning the maintainability of the execution petition, same was rejected vide order dated 01.04.2019, the execution petition as such was listed for final hearing. The Judgment-Debtor from time to time sought adjournments, finally on 24.04.2019 further adjournment was sought which was not granted, accordingly, hearing was closed, the matter was fixed for 01.05.2019. On 01.05.2019, learned executing court has passed a precise order providing for preparing a warrant of execution of the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008 and fixed the petition for report. It appears that the warrant proceedings for execution are being carried into effect which has the effect of evicting the petitioners from the rented premises which include the eviction from the premises where he resides. Aggrieved whereof, instant petition has been filed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner (Judgment- D
