DEWAN CHAND BHALLA Vs. DRASHOK KUMAR BHOIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that needs our consideration and decision in this appeal by special leave is can a tenant of a residential building who is allotted a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements and becomes liable for eviction from that residential building on an application made by his landlord under Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - the 1987 Act, resist grant of such application on the ground of having lost the allotted residence by surrender.

(2.) Antecedent facts are briefly these: The appellant was a tenant of a residential building, Shop No.6, Second Floor, Chhota Shimla Bazar, Shimla under its owners. When that residential building was sold by its owners to the respondent, under a registered sale deed dated 23-9-1982, the appellant became the tenant of the respondent in respect of it. By accepting him as his landlord. However, by then, the appellant was in possession of a residence allotted to him as a Government servant of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Since the provision in S.14(3)(a)(f) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 - the 1971 Act entitled a landlord to get possession of a residential building from his tenant when such tenant was allotted a residence which was reasonably sufficient for his requirements, the respondent (landlord) issued a notice dated 20-10-1982 to the appellant (tenant) calling upon him to give possession of the residential building according to the said provision. But, the appellant did not give possession of the residential building to the respondent as required by the said notice. Instead, the appellant chose to lose possession of the allotted residence by surrendering it to the Government. The respondent who did not get possession of the residential building from the appellant despite notice issued in that regard, made an application under S. 14(3)(a)(f) of the 1971 Act before the Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the residential building. However, the appellant resisted grant of that application on two grounds:(i) that the residence being not reasonably sufficient for his requirements he could not be evicted from the residential building under S. 14(3)(a)(f) of the 1971 Act, and (ii) that the residence allotted to him, when had been lost by surrender, he could not be evicted from the residential building under S. 14(3)(a)(f) of the 1971 Act. The grounds on which the application of respondent was resisted did not find favour with the Controller and were rejected by him as unmerited and untenable by his order dated 10-4-1985 with a direction given thereunder to the appellant to out(sic) the respondent in possession of the residential building. That order of the Controller though impugned by the appellant in an appeal filed before the appellate authority under the 1971 Act that appeal was dismissed resulting in affirmation of the order of the Controller. Thereafter, on 6-5-1986 the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was the Revision Authority under the 1971 Act impugning the order of the Controller, as well as, the Appellate Authority.

(3.) When the said revision petition filed under the 1971 Act was pending disposal by the Revision Authority - the High Court, the 1987 Act was brought into force with effect from 17-11-1971, the date on which the 1971 Act had come into force. The 1987 Act which repealed the 1971 Act, as well, required disposal of every application, appeal, or revision petition, pending decision under any provision of the 1971 Act before the Controller, Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority, in accordance with the corresponding provision of the 1987 Act as if the corresponding provision contained in the latter Act was, at the relevant time, in force. Therefore, the High Court, before which the revision petition of the appellant was pending disposal as a Revisional Authority under the 1971 Act had to decide that revision petition in accordance with the provision in Section S. 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act. Thereafter, the High Court which heard the Revision petition of the appellant, dismissed the same by its considered order dated 5-4-1990. On the first ground of resistance which had been put forth by the appellant against the grant of application of the respondent for eviction, to wit, that the residence which had been allotted to the appellant as a Government servant was not reasonably sufficient for his requirements, the High Court has found it to be unavailable to the appellant on its view that the material on record clearly established that the allotted residence was reasonably sufficient for his requirements. Coming to the second of resistance put forth by the appellant against the grant of application of the respondent for eviction, the High Court has found that the appellant who was allotted a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements and became liable for eviction from that residential building on an application made by the landlord under Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act cannot resist grant of such application on the ground of having lost the allotted residence, by surrender, and hence that ground of resistance was untenable. The appellant has assailed the said order of dismissal of his revision petition by the High Court by filing the present appeal by special leave. At the hearing of the appeal by us we did not permit the learned counsel for the appellant to address his arguments relating to rejection of first ground of resistance put forth by the appellant-tenant against the grant of respondent's application for eviction since the rejection of that ground was based on its factual finding that the residence allotted to him by the Government was reasonably sufficient for his requirements and that it was not a matter which could be permitted to be reagitated in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.