http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5460 of 1999

PETITIONER:

OM PRAKASH GUPTA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

RANBIR B. GOYAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2002

BENCH:

R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar

JUDGMENT:

R.C. Lahoti, J.

The suit premises are described as booth no.13, Sector 8, Panchkula. These premises

were let out by the plaintiff-respondent to the defendant-appellant sometime in August, 198

9 on a monthly rent of Rs.2650/-, excluding electricity charges. Since then the defendant-a

ppellant has been running therein a shop of provision goods and general stores. He fell int

o arrears of rent and electricity charges with effect from 1st April, 1990. The plaintiff-r

espondent served on him a notice demanding payment of arrears and terminating his tenancy. O

n failure to comply with the notice a suit for eviction was filed in the Court of Civil Judg

e on 12.9.1990. The defendant-appellant contested the suit mainly on the ground of notice o

f ejectment being defective. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 11th June, 1998, answer

ed all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and directed the suit for eviction a

nd recovery of arrears to be decreed. First and second appeals preferred by the defendant-a

ppellant have been dismissed. This is an appeal filed by special leave.

It has been common case at the Bar that the suit premises are situated in the State

of Haryana where the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable and the r

ights and obligations of the parties are to be worked out and governed under common law of t

he land. At the time of hearing it was conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant th

at no fault can be found with the decree of the Trial Court as confirmed by the First Appell

ate Court and the High Court. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

there has been a subsequent event having a material bearing on the judgment under appeal an

d the right of the respondent to decree. Such subsequent event is now the core of controver

sy, the relevant facts relating to which, are stated in the succeeding paragraphs.

It appears that the suit premises have been constructed by Haryana Urban Development

Authority (HUDA, for short), governed by the provisions of The Haryana Urban Development Au

thority Act, 1977 (the Act, for short). The premises have been allotted by HUDA to the plai

ntiff-respondent and the latter is required to pay certain instalments to HUDA and a failure

in payment of instalments renders the allotment liable to cancellation with recovery of arr

ears, imposition of penalty and resumption of possession under Section 17 of the Act. The H

igh Court rendered its judgment in Second Appeal on 15.12.1998. The only contention dealt w

ith by the High Court, in view of the singular submission made before it, was to allow the a

ppellant three months’ time for vacating the premises subject to an undertaking for vacating

the premises on expiry of three months. SLP was filed on 8.3.1999. On 30.3.1999 this Cour

t directed a notice on SLP to be issued to the respondent and at the same time passed an int

erim order staying the operation of the decree appealed against. On 15.3.1999, the date on

which the time appointed by the High Court for vacating the premises was coming to an end, t

he tenant-appellant moved an application before the High Court seeking one month’s extension

of time for compliance with the direction of the High Court on two grounds: firstly, that t

hough the SLP was filed in this Court it was yet to be taken up for hearing; and secondly, H

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

UDA had initiated proceedings for resumption of the suit premises against the plaintiff-resp

ondent. It appears that the High Court extended the time for vacating the premises till 20

.4.1999. In the meantime, as already stated, this Court granted interim relief t