B.N. PANDEY Vs. INDRA CHEHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri B.N. Panday was a tenant under the respondent landlady Smt. Indira Chehan in respect of a residential set located within the municipal limits of Simla. The respondent landlady brought an action for ejectment of the petitioner from the said premises in the Court of Rent Controller Simla under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The main ground on which the ejectment of the petitioner was claimed was that the respondent landlady required the premises in question bonafide for her own residential use. The petitioner who initially contested the claim of landlady, later conceded before the controller that the respondent landlady required the premises in question for her bonafide use. A compromise order for ejectment of the petitioner was, therefore, passed by the controller. This order was passed on 25.9.1979. As mutually agreed between the parties, the Controller, however, allowed the petitioner time upto 30.9.1980 to vacate the premises. In other words the ejectment order was made executable only after 30.9.1980.

(2.) IN spite of the compromise ejectment order suffered against him, the petitioner refused to vacate the premises. He is turn, a few days before the expiry of the period allowed to him to vacate the premises, instituted a civil suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Simla praying for issue of (i) a declaration that the compromise ejectment under dated 25.9.1979 passed by the Controller against him had become unexecutable on account of certain developments which had come into existence after the passing of that order and (ii) a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from seeking execution of the aforesaid ejectment order. It was pleaded in the bonafide requirement of the respondent landlady which existed at the time when the impugned ejectment order was passed and which was the only ground on which that order was passed, existed no more. It was alleged that after the date of the said ejectment order, the respondent landlady as also her husband had acquired vacant possession of sufficient residential accommodation at Simla to meet their requirements and hence the order of ejectment had become unexecutable as the purpose it was required to serve had already been served.

(3.) THIS revision petition was in the first instance listed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. A question appears to have been raised before the learned Single Judge 'whether a civil suit of the kind filed by the present petitioner was at all maintainable in law.' The learned single Judge being of the view that this question was a considerable importance and needed authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench made a reference for constituting a larger Bench. The reference is in the following terms :-