GIRISH KUMAR MEHRA Vs. K.K. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases - Civil Revision No. 110 of 1982 (Girish Kumar Mehra v. K.K. Sharma) and Civil Revision No. 61 of 1987 (K.K. Sharma v. Girish Kumar) - arise between the same parties, though decided by courts under separate jurisdictions, namely, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (Civil Revision No. 110 of 1982) and Civil Suit for recovery of arrears of rent by the Civil Court (Civil Revision No. 61 of 1987). It is, therefore, expedient to take up both of them together for decision, though discussed and final judgments rendered separately, to understand the whole gamut of issue between the parties contesting and clashing with each other for the last many years. The facts of this case, in brief are that the petitioner-landlord (to be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 for the eviction of the tenant (to be referred hereinafter as the respondent) on various grounds, namely, that the tenant failed to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1400/- and that the petitioner required the premises for his personal use and occupation and that the respondent having been transferred to Banikhet, had still kept the premises locked. The respondent in his reply filed on 7.6.80 stated that he had already vacated the disputed premises and handed over the possession of the same to the petitioner after making the payment of the rent on his transfer from Palampur to Dalhousie; so prayed that the petition, in these circumstances, deserved dismissal.

(2.) THE Rent Controller directed the presence of the respondent in the Court on 11.10.1980 for the purpose of his examination under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure but due to the failure of the respondent to appear in the court as well as in the absence of any application showing the cause for his absence, the Rent Controller proceeded to pass the order on 30.6.1980. It was held by the Rent Controller that the reply filed by the respondent on 7.6.1980 being conspicuously vague, misleading, ambiguous and dexterous whereby no date, month or year of the vacation of the premises by him (respondent) was given although ambiguously admitted to have vacated the premises in dispute. Therefore, on this ambiguity, the Rent Controller found the desirability of the examination of the respondent under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Finally, the factum of having left the place on transfer having been admitted by the respondent by his implicit admission, ejectment from the premises in dispute was ordered. Costs to the extent of Rs. 150/- were imposed on the respondent.

(3.) SHRI A.K. Goel, who appears for the petitioner, has contended that the lower Appellate Court has wrongly based the decision on the statement of Shri Durga Chand Katoch, Advocate, a junior of Shri Parkash Singh, Advocate, who appeared vice Shri Parkash Chand, Advocate. It is contended that the junior counsel was not authorised to appear or make an admission relating to the receipt of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1400/-. No power-of-attorney was ever executed in his favour and this admission was wrong in view of a separate decree for Rs. 3168.96 already passed by the Sub Judge vide order dated 28.7.1981, which included this amount of Rs. 1400/- as well. In a nutshell, what Shri A.K. Goel intends to contend is that the Appellate Court's judgment is the consequence of this admission and this admission having no authorisation from the client or from the counsel appearing in the case, the judgment, therefore, deserves to be set aside.