Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Om Prakash – Appellant(s)
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.833834 OF 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 59265927 of 2017)
Decided On : 30-01-2020
Rent and Eviction – Re-induction of tenant in tenanted premises – Rent Controller decreed suit directing eviction of respondent from suit premises on the ground that suit premises was required bonafide by appellant for the purpose of reconstruction which could not be carried out without vacating the same followed by demolition thereof – Statement made by counsel for appellant before High Court that respondent-tenant will be re-inducted in equal area in newly constructed building within one month from date of completion of construction work – It is not the case of appellant that he had expressly instructed his counsel not to make such statement – Statement was in respect of commitment of appellant qua subject matter of proceedings in which counsel was engaged and instructed to appear – Appellant cannot now be allowed to resile from statement made before High Court, which High Court justly declined to undo in review petition filed by appellant for that purpose – It is not a case where Counsel who made statement was not engaged by appellant before High Court – Engagement was in respect of eviction proceedings and statement was in relation to commitment of appellant qua subject matter thereof and being an unequivocal statement, it will be binding on appellant – Appellant is obliged to abide by unequivocal statement made before Court to reinduct respondent-tenant in newly constructed building and to provide him same area which was being used by him earlier – Appellant cannot be permitted to extricate himself from obligation flowing from impression given to Court (before High Court and again before this Court) and need to be bound by the same – However, entire ground floor cannot be given to respondent – Appellant shall construct brick wall separating ground floor premises in two portions and handover front portion premises to respondent, whereafter respondent can use the same for non-residential purpose on monthly rent basis – In addition, appellant shall pay the amount of Rs.74,000/- towards compensation/damages and until such payment is made, appellant shall desist from using first and second floor premises for any purpose. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Eviction of tenant. Present appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 12.5.2016 in Civil Revision No. 227/2015 and 24.8.2016 in Review Petition No. 65/2016 passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. Appellant changed his Advocate and then filed review petition before the High Court being Review Petition No. 65/2016, asserting that he had never instructed his counsel to make such statement before the Court regarding reinduction of the respondent-tenant in the newly constructed shops. The said review petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2016. Consequently, both these decisions (dated 12.5.2016 and 24.8.2016) passed by the High Court are subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
Findings of the Court:
Arrangement directed by us would result in compliance of statement made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court and which was made the basis to dispose of the respondent’s revision petition and at the same time, minimise the loss of area to be made over to the respondent-tenant and optimize the utility of the premises to be used by him for non-residential purpose after reinduction and also adequately compensate him for the loss of area.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 12.5.2016 in Civil Revision No. 227/2015 and 24.8.2016 in Review Petition No. 65/2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (for short, ‘the High Court’).
3. The facts very briefly are that the appellant being owner of the premises having three rooms with one veranda, admeasuring 36.53 square meters situated in Ward No. 6, M.C. Area, near Sabji Mandi, Up Mahal, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh (for short, “the suit premises”), had inducted the father of the respondent as its monthly tenant in the year 1969 to use it for nonresidential purpose and the respondent was in occupation thereof when the appellant filed eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller for possession. The respondent, at the relevant time, was carrying on business as cloth merchant in the suit premises. The Rent Controller vide order dated 28.11.2013 decreed the suit directing eviction of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground that the suit premises was required bonafide by the appellant for the purpose of reconstruction, which could not be carried out without vacating the same followed by demolition thereof. That decree was confirmed by the appellate Court, against which civil revision being C.R. No. 227/2015 came to be filed before the High Court. During the hearing of the said petition, the learned counsel for the respondenttenant had urged before the High Court that the tenant was ready and willing to handover possession of the suit premises subject to the landlord (present appellant) agreeing to reinduct him as tenant in equivalent area occupied by him in the suit building. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the present appellant, unequivocally, stated before the High Court that the appellant was not averse to the offer so made by the tenant. That statement has been recorded by the High Court and on that basis the civil revision came to be disposed of in the following words:
“5. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anita Pramar, Advocate is not averse to the offer so made on behalf of the petitionertenant. It is stated at the Bar that construction work will be completed within one year from the date i.e. 30th October, 2016, when the possession of the demised premises is to be handed over to the respondentlandlord. Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitionertenant will be re inducted in equal area in the newly constructed building within one month i.e. on or before 30th November, 2017 from the date of completion of the construction work i.e. 31.10.2017. Mr. Sharma also agreed to the fixation of rent on reinduction of the petitionertenant at the market rates prevalent in the area where the demised premises situate by the Rent Controller concerned.
6. In view of the above, nothing is left to be adjudicated upon in this petition on merits. The same, therefore, is disposed of with a direction to the petitionertenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to respondentlandlord on or before 31st October, 2016. He shall pay the use and occupation charges till 31st October, 2016 at the rates, he is paying at present. On his failure to hand over the vacant possession by the aforesaid date, the respondentlandlord shall have the right to execute the order of eviction and in that event the petitioner tenant shall also have no right to claim his re induction in the newly constructed building. There shall be a direction to the respondentlandlord to complete the construction on the spot on or before 31st October, 2017. He shall reinduct the petitionertenant in equal area i.e. 36.53 square meters, presently occupied by him in the demised premises within one month thereafter i.e. by 30th November, 2017. On the failure of the respondentlandlord to compete the construction within the stipulated period and re induction of the petitionerte
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
