R.N. GOSAIN versus YASHPAL DHIR

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 23-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

R.1'. GOSAIN 
v. 
YASHPAL DHIR 
OCTOBER 23, 1992 
(K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 195(}-Article 136-Special leave petition--
Whether entertainable, when petitioner (tenant) avails protection from eviction 
on the basis of undertaking. 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941)-Section BA-Eviction 
of tenant-High Court's order-Protection from eviction availed by tenant 
under an undertaking-Invoking Supreme Court under Article 136 of the 
Constitution assailing High Court's judgment-Legality of 
A 
B 
c 
A residential house was let out to the petitioner by the respondent. D 
The respondent was initially employed as Accounts Officer with the 
Finance Department of the Government. In 1969, he went on deputation 
with the Haryana Agricultural University. While he was employed on the 
post of Comptroller in the University he retired from service with effect 
from February 28, 1991. 
E 
Claiming to be a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 
2(hh) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the respon-
dent moved a petition seeking eviction of the petitioner under section 13A 
of the Act before the Rent Controller. 
The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on the view that 
the respondent did not fall within the ambit of the definition of "specified 
landlord", since he failed to show that he was holding or had held an 
appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of 
the Union or of the State. 
The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court under 
section 18-A(8) of the Act, which was allowed by the High Court on March 
F 
G 
6, 1992. The Hi~h Court held that the respondent, at the time of his 
retirement from the post of Comptroller in the University, was holding an 
api:ointrnent in connection with the affairs of the State and hence he was H 
257 
258 
SUPREME COURT RFPORTS 11992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2(hh) of the Act and 
that the respondent had fully satisfied the conditions as contained in 
section 13-A of the Act and he was entitled to recover the possession of the 
premises in dispute from the pe!itioner. The High Court allowed one 
month's time for the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to his 
B 
c 
D 
E 
paying the entire arrears of rent within 15 days from the date of the order 
and tiling an undertaking that he would hand over the vacant possession 
of the premises on the expiry of the aforesaid period. 
On March 16, 1992, the petitioner moved a petition in the High 
Court under section 151 CPC seeking three months' time to vacate the 
house and for waiving the requirement of filing of an undertaking. The 
High Court rejected the petition. 
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an undertaking dated March 
20, 1992 before the Rent Controller wherein the petitioner referred to the 
direction contained in the order of the High Court dated March 6, 1992. 
On March 21, 1992, the petitioner filed the special leave petition 
under Article 136 of the Constitution in this Court and succeeded to get 
an order staying dispossession on March 26, 1992. 
In response to the notice issued on the Special Leave Petition, the 
respondent filed a. counter-affidavit raising an objection that in view of the 
undertaking given by the petitioner, the jurisdiction of this Court under 
Article 136 of the Constitution could not be invoked. 
The respondent-landlord submitted that in view of petitioner-
F 
tenant's having taken the benefit of direction contained to the order of the 
High Court allowing him one month's time to vacate the premises on his 
filing an undertaking that vacant possession of the premises would be 
handed over on the expiry of the period and his having submitted a written 
undertaking in accordance with the direction, the petitioner was precluded 
G f'rom assailing the judgment of the High Court by invoking the jurisdic-
tion of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
The petitioner-tenant submitted that he did not take any undue 
advantage by giving the undertaking; that prior to the undertaking, he had 
moved an application for extension of time before the High Court wherein 
H he had clearly indicated that he intended to file a special leave petition in 
R.N. GOSAIN v. YASHPAL DHIR 
259 
this Court against the order of the High Court dated March 6, 1992 and A 
that it was also expressly stated in the undertaking tiled in the Court 
wh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.