NAND DEO PANDEY Vs. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by special leave arises from the proceedings for eviction under The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act). S. 13(2) of the Act enables the landlord of a building in possession of a tenant to seek eviction on an application for direction in that behalf on anyone of the grounds provided thereunder. If the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from the tenant in respect of the building within 15 days after expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord, the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession as provided in Cl. (i) of sub-see. (2) of S. 13 of the Act. S. 13 of the Act so far as it is material reads as under:-

(2.) Puran Chand, the second respondent, herein is the tenant in possession of a shop building owned by Smt.. Parmeshwari Devi. An application was filed by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi against her son-in-law, Ram Kumar, under S. 13(2) of the Act for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent alleging that Ram Kumar was in possession of the shop in question as tenant. While Ram Kumar conceded the claim, Puran Chand got himself impleaded in the proceedings and contested the matter asserting that he was the direct tenant in possession of the building and there had been no arrears of rent. The Controller dismissed the application finding that, Ram Kumar was not the tenant and the second respondent is in possession as tenant and holding the view that the landlord could not be allowed to seek an ejectment order through dubious means by arraying only the person with whom there existed no relationship as landlord and tenant. The appellate authority confirmed the order. The revision preferred by the landlord was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants are the legal representatives of Smt. Rameshwari Devi.

(3.) Shri Rajendra Sachhar, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the scope of the relevant provisions in the Act in rejecting the application and in a case where the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent as required under the proviso to Cl. (i) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act, the ground of non-payment of rent entitling the landlord to an order of ejectment is clearly proved. It is, therefore, submitted that when the second respondent has not paid the rent for the period in question even during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellants are entitled to an order in their favour. According to the learned counsel, it is not necessary for the appellants to specifically. allege that the second respondent was the tenant or that he defaulted the payment of rent and seek an order of ejectment against him by an amendment of the application for granting such relief and the view held by the High Court to the contrary is erroneous.