LexSHRI KAILASH CHAND AND ANR. versus SHRI DHARAM DASS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHRI KAILASH CHAND AND ANR.
A
v.
SHRI DHARAM DASS
OCTOBER 7, 2004
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
B
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, I987: s. I4(3),(a)(i) and
third proviso-Bar against landlord to seek eviction of tenant again, once he
had obtained relief on the same ground of personal requirement-Eviction of C
tenant on ground of bona fide requirement of landlord-Subsequently
application by landlord for eviction of tenant under the same provision, but
in changed circumstances-Maintainability of -Held, it would be appropriate
that the matter be placed for consideration by a Bench of three Judges-
Ordered accordingly.
·Molar Mal (dead) through Lrs. v. Mis Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., {2000)
4 SCC 285; Brij Lal Puri v. Muni Lal, AIR (1979) P&H 132 and Jagir Singh
v. Jagdish Pal Sagar, (1980) 1 RCR 494 (P&H), referred to.
D
Food Corporation of India v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.,
(1994) 3 SCC 324; K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar v. MR. Ramachandra Naidu, E
(1994) 5 SCC 14; State of Punjab and Anr. v. Khan Chand, (1974) 2 SCR
768; Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr., (2002) 4 SCC 105;
Rakesh Wadhawan and Ors. v. Jagdamba Industrial Corpn. and Ors., [2002)
5 SCC 440 and Suraj Mal v. Radheyshyam, [1988) 3 SCC 18, cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 390 of F
2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2001 of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court in C.R. No. 35 of 2004.
Oharuv Mehta and Mohit Chaudhary for the Appellant.
Rajesh Gupta, Harpeet Singh and Ajay Choudhary, for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
295
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
ORDER
The present appeal is filed aga.jnst the judgment and order dated
November 27, 200 I passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shim la
in Civil Revision No. 35 of 1999. By the said order, a single Judge of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the eviction petition filed by the
B landlord reversing order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Shim la
and confirmed by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla.
The appellant herein is the owner of a building being House No. 108,
Anandele, Shim la ('suit premises' for short). He let the first floor of the suit
C premises to the respondent. The landlord filed an eviction petition against
the tenant in respect of the first floor of the building in November, 1980.
The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller by an order dated October
31, 1984. The tenant preferred an appeal and challenged the decree of eviction.
On September 17, 1986, however, a compromise was arrived at between the
parties. On the basis of the said compromise, the tenant agreed to vacate the
D first floor in favour of the landiord and was inducted as tenant of the ground
floor of the same building.
According to the landlord, at the relevant time he was staying all alone
in Shimla. Subsequently, however, his wife had also shifted from village
Panhoi to Shimla. Moreover, the landlord wanted to get his child educated
E at Shimla where best facilities for studies are available. He, therefore, filed
eviction petition against the tenant. The Rent Controller, Shimla, by an order
dated January 20, 1993, held that the landlord wanted the premises for his
bona fide occupation and accordingly an order of eviction was passed. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal which was dismissed
F by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla, by an order dated November 30,
1998. The aggrieved tenant carried the matter to the High Court by filing
Civil Revision 35 of 1999. According to the landlord, a new ground which
was never raised before the courts below was put forth by the tenant contending
that the eviction petition filed by the landlord was not maintainable in view
of third proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh
G Urban Rent Control Act, I 987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Section
14 of the Act provides for eviction of tenants in certain cases on certain
grounds. Sub-section (3) deals with cases ofrequirement of building premises
by the landlord. The relevant part of sub-section (3) reads as under :
"(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing
H
KAILASH CHAND v. DHARAM DASS
297
the tenant to put the landlord in possession
(a) in the case of a residential building, if
(i)
he requires it for his own occupation :
xxxxx
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.