Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh vs Harbans Kaur on 29 May, 2014
CR No.3845 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3845 of 2014.
Decided on:-29.5.2014.
Kulwant Singh. .........Petitioner.
Versus
Harbans Kaur .........Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
Present:- Mr. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
Order of 13.5.2014 of the Rent Controller whereby application for recalling of order dated 26.4.2012 concerning vacation of premises as also for appointment of the Local Commissioner was dismissed, has been impugned in this civil revision petition preferred by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book.
3. Pursuant to a petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) for eviction of tenant Kulwant Singh from the premises in dispute, eviction of the tenant had been ordered holding, interalia, personal requirement of the landlady, as was set up in the petition. Since the tenant wanted time to vacate the premises, the landlady granted the same and Yag Dutt 2014.05.30 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3845 of 2014 -2- settled the matter with the tenant.
4. Statement of 26.4.2012 was suffered by the tenant admitting claim of personal requirement of the landlady and had sought time to continue in the premises till 30.4.2014. Sequelly, order of ejectment was passed against the tenant in respect of the demised premises further stipulating that the tenant would continue to pay rent as also electricity and water charges till 30.4.2014. The landlord had also undertaken to repair the roof of three rooms and gallery by 31.5.2012.
5. The application was moved by the tenant for recalling eviction order of 26.4.2012 with further request to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. It was claimed that the landlady had not carried out the essential repairs and thus, having not done her part of the task, the said lapse made out a case for recall of the order.
6. This application was strongly resisted. It was claimed that necessary repairs have been carried out by the landlady to the satisfaction of the tenant but he continued playing truant and did not pay the rent for June and July, 2012 and thereafter, continuously since September, 2012 till date. It was also explained that the landlady was senior citizen of 87 years of age and the tenant was harassing her.
7. Yet another application was moved by the tenant for appointment of a Local Commissioner to prove that requisite repairs had not been carried out by the landlady. This application met with tough resistance from the landlady. It was explained that since the Rent Controller had become functus officio, the application for appointment of Local Commissioner was not maintainable before the Rent Controller. It was further averred that after carrying out all necessary and essential repairs before 31.5.2012, an affidavit to this effect had already been tendered before the Rent Controller including bills of the expenditure incurred on such Yag Dutt 2014.05.30 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3845 of 2014 -3- repairs.
8. Perusal of the eviction order reveals that it is based on undertaking of the tenant to vacate the premises by 30.4.2014 on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady which was admitted. Further request was made to the Rent Controller for making an order of eviction, however, time was granted for vacation of the premises.
9. Since undertaking (Annexure P-2) given to the court for vacation of the premises by 30.4.2014 is clear, transparent and absolute, it was indefeasible. There is nothing on record to show that repairs in terms of such agreement had not been made before the stipulated date i.e. 31.5.2012.
10. In the backdrop of this factual matrix, the Rent Controller was right in declining the prayer of the tenant for recalling of order dated 26.4.2012 regarding vacation of the premises.
11. So far as the matter of appointment of Local Commissioner is concerned, such appointment shall also not go to help the tenant. Repairs as per affidavit dated 30.5.2012 of the landlady have already been conducted and there is complete compliance of order dated 26.4.2012 by the landlady. If repairs were conducted two years ago, normal wear and tear of the premises during intervening period till date, would blur the technical aspects of the Local Commissioner with regard to alleged carrying out of the earlier repairs by the landlady. In short, visit of site by the Local Commissioner presently would not be of any help to see as to whether repairs were conducted two years ago or not?
12. It is clear that when the date for vacation of the premises is fixed as 30.4.2014, the tenant has become hyperactive to somehow or the other thwart the right of the landlady for getting vacated the demised premises. Both the applications for recalling of the order dated 26.4.2012 as also for appointment of the Local Commissioner are a camouflage merely to Yag Dutt 2014.05.30 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.3845 of 2014 -4- delay and dilate the vacation of the premises by the tenant and are nothing but an unscrupulous and malafide move of the tenant.
13. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the Rent Controller is affirmed and the petition being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge May 29, 2014 'Yag Dutt' Yag Dutt 2014.05.30 15:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document