NANAK CHAND Vs. JAMUNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 21 (5) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arises out of proceedings initiated by the petitioner under section 14 (4) of the Act, under the circumstances set out hereunder.

(2.) One Shri Kuljas Rai, whose legal representatives are respondents 1 (a) to 1 (e) in this Civil Revision Petition, owned plot No. 3 in Block -3 situate in Manali. He let out the aferesaid plot to the petitioner herein on 15 -3 -1978, on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 for a period of eleven months initially. A rent -deed was also executed on 20 -3 -1978. On 11 -1 -1980, Sh. Kuljas Rai filed an application for eviction against the petitioner herein under section 14 (2) of the Act praying for an order of eviction on the ground that he required the demised property for raising constructions. The petitioner resisted the application on several grounds, which need not be noticed in extenso for the purpose of present Civil Revision. Suffice it to say, that on the contents of the eviction petition and the reply resisting the same, the Rent Controller framed three issues, of which issue No. 2 related to the question whether Kuljas Rai landlord required the plot in question for construction, as alleged. On that issues, on a consideration of the evidence of Shri Kuljas Rai examined as AW -1 and the evidence of the S. D. O., P. W. D., Manali, examined as AW -5 and the contents of the rent -deed dated 20 -3 -1978, the Rent Controller found that right from the beginning, Shri Kuljas Rai had desired to raise a pucca construction on the plot in question and that this was also not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner and ultimately found issue No. 2 in favour of Shri Kuljas Rai. However, while granting relief to Shri Kuljas Rai, the Rent Controller did so in the following terms: "...........I pass an order of eviction in favour of the applicant and against the respondent under section 14 (3) (ii) (d) of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1971, directing the respondent that he will hand over vacant possession of the demised plot to the applicant within a period of two months, i. e. from 17 -5 -1982. After handing over the vacant possession of the demised plot, the applicant will raise Pucca construction as per sanctioned plan on the plot in question within three years, thereafter i.e., by 17 -5 -1985 and thereafter will give one shop of the size stated above on monthly rent of Rs. 500 to the respondent........."

(3.) Since the petitioner did not handover the vacant possession of the demised plot to Shri Kuljas Rai as per the above order, he filed an application to execute the order of eviction, when the petitioner raised - objections to the effect that the order of eviction was passed as a result of a compromise which is a nullity and was also not executable and further that the ground on which eviction was sought by Shri Kuljas Rai, under section 14 (2) of the Act, was not available to him The objections so put forward by the petitioner were heard by the Rent Controller, Kallu, and by an order dated 3 -11 -1982, the objections were all over -ruled and the execution was directed to be proceeded with. Against that order the petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 294/82 before this Court, which was dismissed on 10 -11 -1992. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 11914/82, which was also dismissed oh 21 -1 -1983, with the following observations: "The S. L. P. is dismissed. It is obvious that the respondent has taken loan for construction and he will start construction work as soon as possible so that the tenant gets the shop immediately after the shop is constructed". Meanwhile, Shri Kuljas Rai had taken possession of the demised property on 10 -12 -1982. Subsequently, on 10 -5 -1984, the petitioner herein filed a Rent Petition No. 11/84 under section 14 (4) of the Act stating that Shri Kuljas Rai with a view to set at naught the order of the Rent Controller and also the Supreme Court, transferred plot No. 3 to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein and that possession of the plot had also been delivered to them and, therefore, Sh. Kuljas Rai and the purchasers from him, should be directed to deliver -possession of the plot to him. The application so made was resisted by Shri Kuljas Rai and also the vendees from him contending that the order passed by the Rent Controller directing Sh. Kuljas Rai to make available the shop to the petitioner was beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and such a direction was invalid and incapable of being implemented. On a consideration of the prior proceedings and also the adjudications therein, as well as the requirements of section 14 (4) of the Act, the Rent Controller, on 22 -2 -1984, took the view that the order dated 17 -3 -1982 passed by the then Rent Controller directing Kuljas Rai to give one shop to the petitioner, could not be enforced under section 14 (4) of the Act. On that conclusion, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 17 -9 -1984. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed C, M. P. No. 18969/85 in S. L. P. No. 11914/82, praying that Kuljas Rai and others should be punished for having disobeyed the direction given in S. L. P. No. 11914/82 and that application was dismissed on 26 -8 -1985. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 24 -3 -1986 and aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come up before this Court in this proceeding.