SURINDER SINGH SIBIA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal, directed against judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, is if possession given to competent authority under Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972 (for brevity 'Requisition Act') is vacation of premises without sufficient cause within second proviso to sub-section (3) of S. 14 of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 deemed to have come into force with effect from 17th November, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Vacation of a building by landlord in pursuance of an order of requisition by the competent authority could not be characterised as, 'not without sufficient cause'. A landlord has no option. He is required to vacate under constraint of law. Therefore the statutory restriction created by second proviso would not apply in such a case. Does it make any difference in law or the action of the landlord is not rendered without sufficient cause as he did not file any objection in requisition proceedings either under mistake advice or ignorance of law For this it is necessary to narrate facts in brief. The appellant is owner of Kennilworth house/ Simla and its annexe. He was in occupation of first floor of Kennilworth house. Second floor was let out to the District Judge, who, later was elevated to the Bench. For his occupation the entire house was requisitioned. The appellant did not file any objection. After vacating, the building he applied for eviction of respondent from the annexe. His application was rejected as it was found to be in teeth of the second proviso. It was held that the order of requisition was passed because the appellant did not show any cause by filing any objection under sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Requisition Act even though proviso to the subsection precluded any property or part from being requisitioned if it was in bona fide use by the owner. The explanation of the appellant that he was advised by his lawyer not to file any objection as the building was required for a High Court judge was not accepted.

(3.) Validity or invalidity of an order under Requisition Act could not adversely reflect on sufficiency of cause under Rent Control Act. Reason for either arises in different circumstances. Vacating a building even under an incorrect order passed by a competent authority under Requisition Act would be for sufficient reason. The Rent Control authorities could not examine merit of the order under Requisition Act. Therefore it could not be a valid consideration for holding that the building was vacated without sufficient cause. The Courts below thus committed an error of law in applying second proviso to reject the application filed on behalf of the appellant.