Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Roshan Lal Bharadwaj vs Ashok Sud on 13 January, 2014

ä(
ITEM NO.32                  COURT NO.12             SECTION XIV

              S U P R E M E    C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).36864/2013

(From the judgement and order     dated 04/10/2013 in CR No.4034/2013 of The
HIGH COURT OF H.P AT SHIMLA)

ROSHAN LAL BHARADWAJ                                  Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

ASHOK SUD & ANR                                       Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief)

WITH SLP(C) NO. 37472 of 2013
(With office report)

Date: 13/01/2014    This Petition was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH


For Petitioner(s)         Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
                          Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Adv.
                       Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.

                          Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv.
                          Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
                          Mr. J.N.S. Tyagi, Adv.
                       Mr. E.C. Agrawala, Adv.

For Respondent(s)


             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R

Heard.

The special leave petition is dismissed.

However, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is allowed to occupy the premises upto 30th June, 2014 subject to filing of usual undertaking within four weeks and following conditions:

. 1 The Petitioner shall pay arrears of rent, if any, in favour of respondents and deposit the amount in the account of the respondents, number of which may be provided by the respondents or by way of bank draft within two months; . 2 The petitioner shall pay occupancy charges for the month of January,2014 onwards @ Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month as directed by the High Court by the 7th day of the subsequent month;

. 3 The petitioner shall not create any third party interest on the suit premises.

.

On failure of any of the conditions, it will be open to the respondents to move before this Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner.

This special leave petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.R. No.49/2006. By the impugned order the High Court while modifying the order of the Rent Controller, passed the following order:

"The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within a period of three months. Thereafter, the landlord shall commence the construction within a period of six months and complete the same within a further period of one year after obtaining the statutory permissions. The tenant shall be re-inducted on the basis of the observations made hereinabove after one month of the construction of the building. The tenant should be re-inducted in the same place, location and area should beequivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenant before the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller."

- 2 -

The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the last portion of the order wherein the High Court observed that the tenant should be re-inducted in the same place, location and area which is equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenant before the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such observation amount to give a particular place and location in the newly constructed building which may not be feasible in view of the new plan and construction.

We are not agreeable to the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to us the High Court has asked the petitioner to re-induct the tenant in the same place and location which means in the same building on the same place, equivalent to the area which was occupied by the tenant earlier.

It is needless to say that rest of the provision of law as innumerated in proviso to Section 14 (C) of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act is required to be followed.

The special leave petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

        [RAJNI MUKHI]                         [USHA SHARMA]
         SR. P.A.                     COURT MASTER