SUKH DEV Vs. JAI GOPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtor/petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises i.e. Shop No.37/3, Middle Bazar Shimla. He has suffered a decree of eviction from the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the decree of eviction rendered by the learned Rent Controller has attained finality and conclusiveness. The learned executing Court, while proceeding to execute the decree of eviction rendered against the petitioner/tenant despite objections preferred before it by the judgment debtor/tenant proclaiming and enunciating the reservation of a right in his favour in consonance with the proviso to Section 14 (3) of the H.P. Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contemplating the right of re-entry of an evicted tenant from the tenanted/demised premises on its being rebuilt, had omitted to, preceding the issuance of warrants of possession, reserve a right in favour of the petitioner/tenant of re-entry in the demised premises on its being rebuilt. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits before this Court that the revision petition as preferred by the judgment debtor/petitioner before this Court is not maintainable in the face of possession of the tenanted premises having come to be delivered to the landlords/respondents. He also proceeds to submit that the provisions on which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/judgment debtor relies upon for rendering the order of eviction vitiable, does not marshal any succor or strength in the face of the amendment carried out to the provisions of Section 14 whereby the proviso was added to sub section 3(c) of the Act in March, 2012, having been accorded prospective effect, hence, given the fact of proceedings in the rent petition having terminated in the year 2010 on the rendition of a judgment by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, as such, when in the year aforesaid, the aforesaid amendment carried out in the Act was not in force, hence, it cannot be relied upon.

(2.) This Court has given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) It is settled law as postulated in judgments rendered by this Court in Jaswinder Singh and others versus Kedar Nath versus and another,2012 HLJ 1452and Kanchana Devi versus Arun Kumar,2012 HLJ 1504that the amendment as carried out in Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act whereby the proviso was added to sub Section 3 (c) of the aforesaid Act vesting in the tenant evicted a right to reentry on new terms of tenancy on the basis of mutual agreement between the landlord or tenant, to the premises in the rebuilt premises, is prospective in operation. Accordingly, given the fact that the proceedings in the execution petition terminated in the year 2014, hence, after coming into force of the amendment aforesaid vesting a right to the extent as provided in the proviso, in the tenant evicted, as such, a right as vested by law in favour of the judgment debtor/tenant was exercisable as then it was in force, besides extantly too is exercisable on the termination of the execution proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended before this Court that on termination of the execution proceedings especially when the possession of the tenanted premises has been delivered by the petitioner/judgment debtor/tenant to the landlord, as such, no survivable or an enlivened fact exists in favour of the petitioner. The said argument is of no force in the face of it being demonstrated by the material as exists on record before this Court comprised in the petitioner/tenant/judgment debtor having agitated its applicability before the learned executing Court by way of filing objections anvilled upon the proviso to Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act. However, the said objection appears to have been summarily rejected by the learned executing Court. The learned executing Court while exercising jurisdiction vested in it having summarily rejected the objections preferred by the petitioner/tenant/judgment debtor for securing a right of re-entry vested in him in the proviso to Section 14(3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, has exercised the said jurisdiction with material illegality and irregularity, especially when the right aforesaid vested in the tenant/petitioner by proviso to Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act endured or survived even after the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises. Strength to the aforesaid reason of a right to reentry vesting in a tenant under the proviso to Section 14(3)(c) continuing and subsisting even after his having vacated the demised premises, is anchored upon the fact of the phase "tenant evicted" existing in the proviso aforesaid, taking within its fold the exerciseability of the said right by the tenant even after his having vacated the demised premises. In other words, reinforcingly, it can be concluded that the proviso aforesaid communicates that the "tenant evicted" shall ipso facto have the right aforesaid even when the possession of the demised premises has been delivered by him to the landlord/decree holder or hence it conveys that the right of reentry in demised premises conferred upon him under the proviso still remains awakened in accordance with law.