SH. DEWAN CHAND BHALLA versus DR. ASHOK KUMAR BHOIL

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 22-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SH. DEWAN CHAND BHALLA 
v. 
DR. ASHOK KUMAR BHOIL 
JULY 22, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987: 
Section 14(3)(a)(iv) 
Tenant-Govt., employee-Allotment of reasonable sufficient Govern· 
ment residential accommodation tr>-Right of landlord to seek eviction-Such 
a tenant cannot resist landlord's eviction petition on the ground that he lost 
the allotted residence by surrender. 
Constitution of India 1950 : Article 136. 
Appeal by special leave-fl.eagitation of issue against concurrent find· 
ings of fact-Permissibility of 
The appellant-tenant, a Government servant, was allotted Govern· 
E ment residence by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Respondent· 
landlord filed a petition before the Controller under Section 14(3)(a)(O of 
the Himachal Pradesh urban Rent Control Act, 1971 which entitled a 
landlord to get possession of a residential building from his tenant when 
such tenant was allotted a residence which was reasonably sufficient for 
F his requirements. The appellant contended that he could not be evicted 
because (i) the residence allotted to him by the Govemment was not 
reasonably sufficient for his requirements and (ii) he has surrendered the 
residence alloted to him. Rejecting both the contentions the Controller 
allowed the landlord's aplication and directed the appellant to band over 
possession of residential building to the Respondent. On appeal by tenant 
G the appellate authority affirmed the Controller's order. The appellant filed 
a revision petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. During 
the pendency of the Revision Petition, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent 
Control Act, 1987 came into force and consequently the petition had be 
decided under the corresponding provision in section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 
H 1987 Act. The High Court dismissed the Petition holding that (i) the 
86 
, 
It 
O.C. BHALLA v. A.K. BHOIL 
87 
material on record clearly established that the allotted residence was A 
reasonably sufficient for appellant's requirements; and (ii) he cannot 
resist grant of such aplication on the ground of having lost the allotted 
residence by surrender. 
In appeal to this Court, Counsel for the appellant was not permitted 
to address his arguments on the finding that the residence allotted to 
tenant by the Government was reasonably sufficient for his requirements 
as it was not a matter which could be permitted to be reagitated in an 
appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. As regards 
B 
the other ground it was contended that the High Court erred in holding 
that the landlord would be entitled to get possession under section C 
14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act even where the residence alloted to the tenant 
by the Government was surrendered and lost by him before eviction 
application was made inasmuch as that view had the effect of laking a way 
the protection given by the 1987 Act to a tenant from eviction of the 
tenanted building. 
Dismissing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1. The High Court's view does not call for interference in 
D 
this appeal. A tenant of a residential building who being allotted a 
residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements becomes liable for E 
eviction from the residential building on an application made by his 
landlord under section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent 
Control Act, 1987 cannot resist the grant of such application on the ground 
that he lost the allotted residence by surrender made either before or after 
the filing of such application. [93-A, BJ 
2. No doubt, the 1987 Act seeks to protect the tenants from eviction 
from the tenanted lands or buildings by their landlords. Section 14(1) of 
the 1987 Act itself forbids eviction of a tenant in possession of a building 
F 
or rented land even in execution of a decree passed or otherwise. But, it 
cannot be overlooked that that section itself declares that a tenant could G 
be evicted from the tenanted building or land if such eviction is permitted 
under any other provisions of the 1987 Act and removes the cloak of 
protection given to certain tenants. Section 14(3)(a)(iv) is one of such 
other provisions in the 1987 Act. [91-C, DJ 
3. Clear and unequivocal words employed in section 14(3)(a)(iv) give H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994J SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A not 5l:llp.e_for a_!e_n~nLto say that the accrued entitlement or right of the 
landlord to gel back possession of the residential

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