MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER versus KRISHAN KUMAR SOOD

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 12-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MADAN MOHAN AND ANOTHER 
v. 
KRISHAN KUMAR SOOD 
JANUARY 12, 1993 
(J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAY AL AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987~egislative inten-
tion-i'rotection to tenant-When available. 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987-Section 14-Evic-
tion on the ground of non-payment of rent-Execution on application of 
landlord-Extension of time to t,leposit arrear by executing Court-Whether 
justified. 
A 
B 
c 
Himacl1al Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.,..-Section 14(2)(i), D 
3rd proviso, (v )-''Amount due''-Construction Rent Controller to specify what 
the amount due-''May''-Meaning of 
The respondent was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 183.33 per month in 
the suit-P.remises. The respondent was in arrears of rent with effect from 
1.3.19811 to 28.2.1983. 
E 
On 7th March, 1983, predecessor-in-interest of appellant No.2 and 
appellant No.1, filed an application for eviction of the respondent on the 
ground of non-payment of rent. 
The Rent Controller on 29.7.1986 passed an order of eviction. 
On 13.8.1986 the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 8,500 In the 
court of the Rent Controller. 
F 
According to the appellants tbe am.ouot deposited was not in ac-
G 
cordance with the ·.~rder dated 29th julyi1986. They filed the execution 
petition before th~·· Rent Controller seeking possession of the suit 
premises. 
The Rent Controller framed two issues: (a) whether the tender made 
by the respondent or the rent amount was short as alleged; (b) Relief. 
H 
107 
A 
B 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993) 1 S.C.R. 
The Rent Controller held that the tender made by the respondent 
was short of Rs. 161.29. While deciding issue No. 2, the Rent Controller 
allowed 15 days' time to deposit the said amount. 
The appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller 
filed a revision petition in the High Court. 
Before the High Court the appellants submitted that the executing 
court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for making good the deficien· 
cy of Rs. 161.29 inasmuch as since period of 30 days was fixed by the 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 itself, the court could 
C not either enlarge or abridge this period. 
D 
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the 
respondent was not liable to be evicted and also held that the order of the 
executing court extending time to deposit Rs. 161.29 in pursuance of Its 
order daed 29.7.1986 was of no consequence. 
The landlord filed this appeal by special leave against the High 
Court's judgment. 
The respondent-tenant submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 14 
gave discretion to the Controller to pass an order of eviction or not to 
_y 
E 
pass an order of eviction, even if the ground mentioned in clauses (i) to 
(v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 14 were made out; that the order of 
eviction which was passed was not the final order in the sense that it was 
an interim order and the final order was passed only after the expiry of 30 
days if the tenant failed to avail of the second opportunity provided by the 
F 
third proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 14. 
Allowing the appeal of the landlord, this Court 
HELD : 1.01. The Rent Control Acts are measures to protect tenants 
from eviction except on certain specified grounds if found established. 
G Once the grounds are made out and subject to any further condition which 
may be provided in the Act, the tenants would suffer ejectment. Again the 
protection given in the Acts is not to give licence for continuous litigation 
and bad blood. [117H] 
1.02. The legislature which made the Act could not have envisaged 
H 
that after the parties finish of one round of litigation, the party should be 
--( 
MADAN MOHAN v. KRISHAN SOOD 
109 
relegated to another round of litigation for recovery of rent which accrued A 
pendente lite. Whatever protection Rent Acts give, they do not give blanket 
protection for 'non-payment of rent'. This basic minim om bas to be 
complied with by the tenants. Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one 
takes a house on rent, he can continue to enjoy the same without payment 
or rent. [118A·BJ 
B 
1.03. Rent Control Acts are necessary social measures for protection 
,,., 
of tenants. The Rent Control Laws have tried to balance the equity. 
Landlord is duty bound to satisfy the ground of eviction mentioned in 
various Rent Acts and if he does not satisfy, he cannot get the order of 
eviction merely because the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.