SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Satish Kumar and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Jagat Ram – Respondent
Civil Revision No.20 of 2019
Decided on 30.10.2019

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Y. P. Sood, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. G. C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Statutory period of 30 days within which liability of rent as determined against tenant is enjoined to be defrayable to landlord by legally permissible mode, is neither extendable nor enlargeable.

Headnote:

Rent and Eviction – Arrears of Rent – Statutory period of 30 days as provided under third proviso to Section 14(2) (i) of Act cannot be extended – A tenant in order to save himself from eviction has to deposit amount due within 30 days from the date order of ejectment is passed against him on the ground of non-payment of rent – Statutory period of 30 days within which liability of rent as determined against tenant is enjoined to be defrayable to landlord by legally permissible mode, is neither extendable nor enlargeable – Payment of rent due within stipulated period of 30 days is a condition precedent and sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before Appellate Authority or else order of Rent Controller has to be treated to have attained finality and appeal must be dismissed – Judgment passed by Appellate Authority set aside and that of Rent Controller restored. [Section 14(2)(i) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971] (Paras 9, 16, 20 to 24)

Result: Revision Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioners are the landlords, who aggrieved by the order passed by the learned first Appellate Authority whereby it modified the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, have filed the instant revision petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed petition for eviction of the respondent on two grounds i.e. arrears of rent and that the respondent has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises. It was claimed by the petitioners that the respondent had not paid rent w.e.f. June, 1987 till filing of the petition. Petitioners further claimed that they had purchased the building in question on 28.11.2014 and the previous owner had assigned the right of recovery of rent from the tenants in the building. The ground of cease to occupy was given up, therefore, not pressed.

3. The respondent contested the petition by denying relationship of landlord and tenant and also denied that that he was in arrears of rent.

4. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the respondent was in arrears of rent qua the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller held the respondent to be in arrears to the tune of Rs.12,859/- w.e.f. June, 1987 till date of passing of eviction order.

5. The respondent did not deposit the arrears of rent within 30 days from the date of order of the learned Rent Controller and assailed the order by filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority.

6. The learned Appellate Authority below though maintained the order of eviction but modified the same by holding that the learned Rent Controller did not take into consideration the Receipt Ext.PX, as per which the respondent claimed to have made payment of rent to the predecessor of the petitioners from July, 1987 to October, 1988 and on such basis held the respondent to be in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.9994/- instead of Rs.12,859/- as was held by the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority further allowed 30 days time to the respondent for deposit of arrears of rent.

7. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority are contrary to law and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. Whereas, Mr. G. C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Ms. Meera Devi, learned Advocate, would argue that since the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is in conformity with the provisions of the law, no interference is warranted and the same needs to be upheld. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

8. At the outset, the relevant provisions of the Rent Act as contained in Sections 14 and 24 of the Act need to be reproduced:-

Section 14(2) – A Landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied:-

(i) That the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable:

Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at the rate of [12 per cent] per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within time aforesaid:

Provided further that if the arrears pertain to the period prior to the appointed day, the rat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top