Back
2022 Supreme(Megh) 160
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, J.
Babulal Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Sant Kumar Bajoria & Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 18/2019
Decided On : 05-04-2022
K. Paul, Sr. Adv. and S. Thapa, Advocate, for the Appellant; S. Sen, Advocate, for the Respondents
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the obligation of the tenant to comply with court orders regarding the payment of rent and the consequences of non-compliance in the context of rent control laws.
Headnote:
Rent Control Laws - Eviction - Title Suit No. 2(H) of 1983, CR (P) No. 8(SH) of 1991, Order XXI of the Code - The judgment discusses the execution of a decree for eviction under rent control laws, emphasizing the obligation of the tenant to pay arrear rent and the consequences of non-compliance with court orders.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the execution of a decree for eviction against a tenant who defaulted in paying rent for a property in an upmarket area. The tenant had been in occupation for several decades and had been found to have committed default in the payment of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the order, leading to the conclusion that the tenant was at fault and liable for eviction.
Issues: The issues included the determination of whether the amount deposited by the tenant was in line with the rule requirement, whether the default in settling the prevailing rent was attributable to the tenant, and the causes and reasons for not settling the prevailing rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's failure to comply with the conditions stipulated in the order led to the conclusion that the tenant was at fault and liable for eviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and ordered the tenant to pay Rs. 10 lakh as costs of the proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated May 22, 2019 passed in execution proceedings. Several issues have been decided by the impugned order pursuant to a direction of this Court.
2. In course of passing the order impugned, the Executing Court perceived that there was no further impediment to the execution of the relevant decree being pursued. The execution has, however, remained effectively stayed during the pendency of the present proceedings in this Court.
3. The matter brings out several features that plague the justice delivery system in this country, particularly when it comes to removing a tenant or lessee who has overstayed the welcome at the relevant property and how the resourceful disingenuously take advantage of the strict rent control laws that are really intended to protect those who do not have their own properties to live in or do business from. Indeed, the present story does not begin from the day that the suit in this case was instituted but it goes back to several decades before when a previous suit between the same parties or their predecessors-in-interest was compromised upon the petitioner herein promising to pay the rent at an enhanced rate. That was how Title Suit No. 15(H) of 1962 ended.
4. The present round of proceedings commenced in 1983 with the institution of Title Suit No. 2(H) of 1983 by which the respondents herein sought a decree for eviction against the petitioner herein from a property in upmarket Police Bazar in the city that is valued at several tens of crores of rupees. A pittance is paid by way of rent and there is default even in the payment of such apology of an amount as rent. The suit was instituted on the twin grounds of reasonable requirement and default in payment of rent. By a judgment and decree of December 23, 1988, the said suit was dismissed by the trial court upon both the grounds urged by the respondents herein being repelled.
5. A regular first appeal, Title Civil Appeal No. 7(H) of 1989, came to be filed by the respondents and the respondents succeeded in obtaining a decree of eviction, though only on the ground of default in the payment of rent and not on reasonable requirement. The defendant carried a revision from the appellate judgment and decree of October 19, 1990 by way of CR (P) No. 8(SH) of 1991. By the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court of December 9, 1993, the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration by the first Appellate Court. On rebound, the first Appellate Court again held in favour of the plaintiff on the ground of default but did not accept the case of reasonable requirement. The operative part of the judgment and decree of September 24, 2008 provides, inter alia, as follows:
'22. ... As the defendant is a defaulter he is liable to be evicted from the suit premises and also liable to pay the arrear rent from the month of April to December, 1982.
23. In the result the appeal is allowed on contest with cost by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.88 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Shillong in Title Suit No. 2(H) of 1983.
24. Prepare the decree accordingly.
25. ...'
6. The decree merely repeats what the operative part of the judgment says at paragraph 23 thereof. In a sense, there appears to be a technical defect in the Appellate Court not specifically providing for a decree for eviction in as many words. In essence, however, the relevant judgment amounts to a decree for eviction having been passed in favour of the plaintiff and ought to have been expressly recognised as such in the formal decree that was drawn up. But, as the appearing parties submit, the prevalent practice of drawing up a formal decree is by merely repeating the operative part of the relevant order without any independent application of mind in such exercise.
7. The present petitioner assailed such appellate judgment and decree by instituting CR (P) No. 10 of 2009, which was la
