Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007
Date of Decision:11.11.2009
Het Ram
.....Petitioner
Versus
Virbhan
.....Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar.
Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate,
for the respondent.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
1. As strange as it may appear but strictly speaking the tendency
and frequency of the tenants by retaining the possession of rented
premises after the order of eviction, by misusing the process of law, and
leaving the landlords in lurch, have been tremendously increasing day by
day. The case in hand is a burning example of such like cases.
2. The matrix of the facts culminating in the commencement,
relevant for disposal, of the present revision petition filed by Het Ram son
of Matu Ram-petitioner-tenant (hereinafter to be referred as the tenant) and
emanating from the record is, that originally Virbhan son of Fakir Chand-
respondent-landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the landlord) filed an
ejectment petition No.57 on 12.09.1992 against the tenant, invoking the
provisions of Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction)
Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) on the ground of non-
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 2
payment of rent, impaired the value and utility of the shop by demolishing
the floor and walls and the tenant used to create nuisance in the locality by
giving bad names.
3. The tenant contested the ejectment petition, inter alia, stoutly
denying the allegations contained therein and prayed for its dismissal.
4. The parties produced their oral as well as documentary
evidence in order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases. The Rent
Controller held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs.600/-
per month and as the tenant did not make the payment and was defaulter,
therefore, he was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of
rent. As a sequel of the findings, the Rent Controller vide order dated
19.08.1997 accepted the ejectment petition and directed the tenant to hand
over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord within
two months from the date of order.
5. The tenant did not feel satisfied with the ejectment order and
filed rent appeal No.10 on 19.09.1997 before the appellate authority. As
soon as, the appeal came up for hearing on 24.10.1998, instead of
arguing, the tenant entered into a compromise with the landlord and
executed compromise deed (Annexure P/1), which is to the following
effect:-
“The above mentioned appeal has been compromised
between the parties according to which Het Ram,
appellant will vacate the shop in dispute and hand over
the possession to respondent landlord Sh.Virbhan on
30.11.2004. The rent of the shop in dispute hence forth
will be Rs.750/- per month which has been settled and
fixed. Besides this, appellant/tenant will increase after
every year Rs.60/- per month inclusive of taxes and will
continue to pay the same to the respondent/landlord and
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 3landlord will issue receipt to the appellant/tenant.
That the respondent landlord will not be entitled to
take possession before 30.11.2004. In case Het Ram,
tenant failed to deliver the possession on 30.11.2004,
then respondent/landlord will be entitled to take
possession through execution. The appellant/tenant
shall not sub-let the shop in dispute upto 30.11.2004.
As per the orders of the court, the appellant has
deposited rent upto October, 1998 which the
respondent/ landlord will be entitled to receive the same.
That from October, 1998, the appellant/tenant Het
Ram will go on paying the rent at the rate of Rs.750/-
per month inclusive of taxes and by increasing after
every year Rs.60/- per month, will continue to pay to the
respondent/landlord. The appeal be decided in terms of
this compromise and the compromise be made part of
the order and the order of ejectment be passed
accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own costs.
Both the parties shall be bound with this compromise.
The respondent/landlord shall withdraw all his previous
cases and the previous dispute be finished as per the
compromise”.
6. Acting on the compromise between the parties, the appellate
authority dismissed the appeal vide separate order of the same date
(Annexure P/2), which reads as follows:-
“The parties have compromised the case in this appeal.
An application for permission to compromise the case
has also been filed by Het Ram, petitioner. The
application has also been supported by the affidavit of
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 4Het Ram, written compromise Ex.C1 has also been
placed on record which has been signed by both the
parties and their respective counsel. The statement of
Het Ram appellant as well as statement of Veerbhan
respondent have also been recorded in which they have
stated that they have compromised the case vide
compromise Ex.C1 which may be treated as part of
compromise. In view of the statement of the parties, the
petition of the appellant (respondent in this appeal) is
hereby decreed. However, the parties are left to bear
their own cost. The written compromise Ex.C1 shall
form part of the decree. The appeal is accordingly
disposed of”.
It means, the tenant has accepted the order of ejectment, took time of
about six years and undertook to vacate the shop and hand over the
possession to the landlord on 30.11.2004.
7. As the tenant did not hand over the vacant possession as per
his undertaking, the landlord filed the execution petition No.11 on
26.02.2005 for taking possession. The tenant instead of honouring the
undertaking and handing over the possession, filed the objection-petition
which was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated
10.03.2007 (Annexure P/3). The tenant again filed an appeal against the
order dated 10.03.2007 which was dismissed with special cost of
Rs.5,000/- by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.04.2007
(Annexure P/4). The impugned orders (Annexures P/3 and P/4) would also
reveal that the tenant has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction
against the landlord restraining him (landlord) from dispossessing the
tenant from the suit property on the basis of ejectment order dated
24.10.1998 in which stay application of the tenant has already been
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 5
dismissed by the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani,
vide order dated 20.01.2006.
8. Having lost two rounds of litigation in the courts below, now the
tenant has challenged the impugned orders (Annexures P/3 and P/4) by
way of this revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone
through the record of the case with their valuable help and after bestowal of
thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, it is a case of absolute misuse
of process of law by the tenant, and as there is no merit, therefore, the
petition deserves to be dismissed with special costs for the reasons
mentioned herein below.
10. The main celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the
tenant that as the area where the disputed premises is situated was taken
out of the purview of Municipal Area on 02.03.2000 and as such, the
provisions of the Act were not applicable, therefore, the Rent Controller
was not justified in entertaining the execution petition and dismissing the
objection petition of the tenant, is neither tenable nor the observations of
this Court in a case titled as J.U.Katyal and another Versus Krishan
Kapur and others, (2005-1) PLR 558, are at all applicable to the facts of
the present case. The plaintiff in that case being the owner/landlord of the
house in dispute had filed a suit for possession on 11.10.1999 by way of
ejectment of the tenant. During the pendency of the suit, the provisions of
the Haryana Rent Act were made applicable to the Panchkula town vide
notification dated 25.01.2001. The trial court dismissed the suit and the
judgment was upheld in appeal. On the peculiar facts and circumstances
of that case, it was observed that subsequent applicability of the Rent Act
on account of declaration of urban area would render the decree of the
Civil Court inexecutable.
11. Possibly, no one can dispute about the aforesaid propositions
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 6
of law but the same would not come to the rescue of the tenant, because in
the present case, admittedly, the provisions of Rent Act were fully
applicable when the landlord filed the ejectment petition, the Rent
Controller passed the ejectment order against the tenant and the appellate
authority decided the appeal of the tenant on the basis of compromise.
The tenant accepted the ejectment order and compromised the matter in
appeal. If the provisions of Rent Act were fully applicable at the relevant
point of time then subsequent change will not, in any way, affect the rights
already accrued to the landlord particularly when the tenant has accepted
the order of ejectment by entering into compromise with the landlord. If the
argument of learned counsel for the tenant is accepted then perhaps, no
landlord would ever be able to get possession of his property.
12. An identical question came up for consideration before the
Hon’ble Apex Court in a case titled as M/s Kesho Ram and Co. and
others etc. Versus Union of India and others, (1989) 3 SCC 151,
wherein it was held as under:-
“……It is a matter of common knowledge that final
disposal of suits before the civil court are time
consuming in view of the heavy workload of cases and
dilatory tactics adopted by the interested party. Having
regard to time normally consumed for adjudication of a
suit by the civil court, it is too much to expect that a suit
filed within the period of exemption of five years can be
disposed of finally within the period of exemption. The
exemption contemplated by the notification permits the
institution of a suit within the period of exemption.
Taking into account the delay caused in disposal of the
suit, it further protects the jurisdiction of the civil court in
passing decree of eviction with a view to make the
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 7exemption effective and meaningful. In this view, if the
submission made on behalf of the tenants is accepted, it
would render the exemption illusory, as in reality, it will
be impossible for a landlord to get the suit decreed
within the period of exemption even if he instituted the
suit within the period of exemption. Interpretation of the
Act and the impugned notification as suggested on
behalf of the tenants if accepted would defeat the
purpose of the beneficial social legislation. It is a settled
rule of harmonious construction of statute that a
construction which would advance the object and
purpose of the legislation should be followed and a
construction which would result in reducing a provision
of the Act to a dead letter or to defeat the object and
purpose of the statute should be avoided without doing
any violence to the language. We therefore reject the
submission made on behalf of tenants”.
13. The same view was again reiterated by this Court in a case
titled as Ramesh Kumar Versus Paras Ram, RSA No.1709 of 2006
decided on March 22, 2007.
14. Thus, it would be seen that once it is proved that the Rent
Controller had the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act at the time of
institution and disposal of ejectment petition, the tenant accepted the
ejectment order and his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on
24.10.1998 on the basis of compromise between the parties, the tenant
took time till 30.11.2004 and did not deliver the possession till today on one
pretext or the other as discussed hereinabove, then, to me, it cannot
possibly be saith that the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to
execute the ejectment order in this regard, as urged on behalf of the
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 8
tenant.
15. The other feeble argument of the learned counsel that since
the Rent Controller did not assess the rent etc. and as the tenant did not
accept the ejectment order before the appellate authority, so the order of
appellate authority was void, inexecutable, is not only devoid of merit but
misplaced as well. As indicated earlier, the Rent Controller passed the
ejectment order against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of
arrears of rent. The tenant filed the appeal before the appellate authority
wherein he had submitted the compromise deed (Annexure P/1) and took
long six years’ time to vacate the demised premises. Then it does not lie in
the mouth of the tenant and he is estopped from his own act and conduct
to deny the legitimate right of the landlord, already accrued, to recover the
possession of his premises. Instead of arguing the appeal, he (tenant)
himself invited the Court to decide the matter in the wake of compromise
deed. Meaning thereby, the tenant has first accepted the ejectment order
and then compromised the matter. As his acceptance is inherent, inbuilt
and implicit in this direction, in that eventuality, the tenant cannot claim that
he has not accepted the ejectment order.
16. The matter did not rest there. He kept quite and did not
challenge the order dated 24.10.1998 till the landlord filed the execution
petition in the year, 2005. It will not be out of place to mention here that the
landlord always has a legitimate/legal right to recover the possession of his
property but subject to the restrictions contained in the Rent Act. If the
tenant was aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.1998 of the appellate
authority, he ought to have challenged the same at that point of time but
now the tenant cannot possibly be heard to say that the earlier order of the
appellate authority was not binding on him. If the arguments of the learned
counsel for the tenant are accepted as such then it will cause a great
injustice to the landlord. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 9
counsel for the tenant ‘stricto-sensu’ deserve to be and are hereby repelled
under the present set of circumstances.
17. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed
from a different angle. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that the
unfortunate landlord filed the ejectment petition on 12.09.1992 and the
tenant contested the same. Having completed all the codal formalities,
ultimately, the Rent Controller passed the ejectment order on 19.08.1997.
The tenant filed the appeal which was decided on the basis of compromise
on 24.10.1998 and he took six years’ time till 30.11.2004 to hand over the
vacant possession to the landlord. But instead of handing over the same,
the tenant in order to delay the delivery of the possession, took recourse to
various litigations and misused the process of law. He has not vacated the
demised premises which necessitated the landlord to file the execution
petition No.11 on 26.02.2005 in which the tenant filed the objection-petition
which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 10.03.2007 (Annexure P/3).
The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide
order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P/4) with special cost of Rs.5,000/- but
even then the tenant did not learn the lesson and preferred the present
revision petition which sans merit.
18. Thus, seen from any angle, to me, the courts below have
rightly dismissed the objections of the tenant in right perspective of the
matter. No fault could possibly be attributed to the impugned orders and
such orders cannot possibly be set aside in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction of this Court, which is very limited and is confined only to testing
the legality or propriety of the orders under revision. It is now well settled
proposition of law that it is not the province of this Court to set aside such
orders unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such
irregularity or patent illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel
for the tenant. It is, therefore, that the impugned orders deserve to be and
Civil Revision No.2003 of 2007 10
are hereby affirmed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
19. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed
by the learned counsel for the parties.
20. Be that as it may, but the fact remains is that the landlord is
roaming around the matter since 12.09.1992 when he originally filed the
ejectment petition. The tenant adopted illegitimate measures and took
recourse to various litigations indicated hereinabove, to delay the delivery
of possession. It means, the landlord remained unsuccessful in getting the
possession of demised premises till today i.e., after long 17 years without
any fault on his part. Thus, the tenant misused the process of law in this
context. This illegitimate practice and tendency of the tenants needs to be
curved by imposing a special cost in this direction, otherwise, it will
inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the landlord.
21. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit,
therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed with special costs of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand).
November 11, 2009 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge