Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Son Of Shri Siri Chand vs State Of H.P. Through Collector Sirmaur ... on 3 July, 2015
Author: P.S. Rana
Bench: P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 53 of 2015
Order Reserved on 5th June 2015
.
Date of Order 3rd July, 2015
________________________________________________________
Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Siri Chand ....Revisionist
Versus
State of H.P. through Collector Sirmaur at Nahan H.P.& another
....Non-Revisionists
________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
__________________________________________________________ For the Revisionist: Mr. George, Advocate For the Non-Revisionist: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General.
P.S. Rana, Judge.
Order:- Present revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 29.12.2014 announced by learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18-CMA/14 of 2014 titled Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. wherein learned District Judge affirmed the order of learned Civil Judge 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 2(Junior Division) Nahan District Sirmaur announced in CMA No. 156/6 of 2014 titled Rajesh Kumar vs. Collector District Sirmaur at Nahan H.P. .
Brief facts of the case
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that revisionist filed the civil suit before learned trial Court for grant of decree of mandatory injunction in favour of revisionist and against the non-revisionists directing non-
revisionists to install the new drinking water connection in premises of revisionist known as "Durga Chhat Bhandar"
(Durga Snacks Stall) new market Nahan pleaded therein that revisionist is running a petty shop and restaurant in new market Nahan. It is pleaded that revisionist is the tenant of shop and plaintiff used to take the water from his neighbour. It is further pleaded that dispute occurred between revisionist and landlord and landlord created pressure on neighbourer of revisionist and water supply of revisionist was stopped. It is also pleaded that thereafter revisionist approached the office of non-revisionist No. 2 to provide new water connection to the revisionist. It is pleaded that non-revisionist No. 2 did not pay any heed to request of revisionist and ultimately revisionist issued ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 3 notice dated 25.6.2014. It is pleaded that water is basic necessity of life and non-revisionists be directed to install new drinking water connection in the tenanted premises .
of plaintiff.
3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of non-revisionists pleaded therein that suit of revisionist is not maintainable because revisionist did not obtain NOC from landlord. It is pleaded that revisionist has no cause of action and due to scarcity of water there was complete ban for providing new private water connection.
4. Revisionist also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction pleaded therein that non-revisionists be directed by way of ad-interim injunction to provide new water connection in the premises situated in Khata/Khatuni No. 110 min/273 Khasra No. 764/1 measuring 10.50 Sq. metres situated in Mohall Amarpur New Market Nahan as per jamabandi for the year 2011-12. Learned trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the ground that revisionist did not obtain no objection certificate from his landlord. Thereafter revisionist filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18-CMA/14 of 2014 titled ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 4 Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan affirmed the order passed by learned trial Court.
.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan revisionist has filed present revision petition.
6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist and learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-revisionists and also perused the record carefully.
7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that order of learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan dated 29.12.2014 is illegal arbitrary and capricious and liable to be quashed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned.
It is prima facie proved on record that revisionist is tenant in the premises and it is also prima facie proved on record that premises is used for commercial purpose. It is also prima facie proved on record that initially the tenancy was created in favour of revisionist by late Smt. Raj Kaur mother-in-law of Arvinder Kaur. It is also prima facie proved on record that after the death of Raj Kaur Arvinder ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 5 Kaur became landlord of premises. It is also prima facie proved on record that rent deeds dated 10.11.2006 and 6.11.2007 were executed inter se the landlord and tenant.
.
It is also prima facie proved on record that in special Act i.e. H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 interest of landlord and tenants are protected. It is also prima facie proved on record that as per Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 landlord is under legal obligation to provide essential supply of services which includes supply of water, electricity, light in passage and on stair cases, conservancy and sanitary services. As per Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 if the landlord does not provide essential supply of services to the tenants as mentioned in this Section then tenant has liberty to file application before Rent Controller under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 and Rent Controller is under legal obligation to pass order under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 to provide essential supply of services to the tenant. Court is of the opinion that revisionist has alternative efficacious remedy under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. As per Section 41 of Specific Relief Act 1963 Civil Court can refuse the injunction when alternative ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 6 equal efficacious remedy is available. It is held that in present case alternative equal efficacious remedy is available to the revisionist under Section 11 of H.P. Urban .
Rent Control Act 1987. It is also prima facie proved on record that there is litigation between the landlord and revisionist which is pending before Rent Controller. Court is of the opinion that tenant can file counter application before Rent Controller under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 for providing essential water service in the tenanted premises.
8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that as per National Water Policy 2012 supply of water is essential for life, livelihood, food security and sustainable development and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that revisionist has alternative efficacious remedy under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987.
9. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that as per H.P. State Water Policy 2013 revision petition be accepted is ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 7 rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that revisionist has alternative efficacious remedy before Rent .
Controller as per Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 for supply of water.
10. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that order of learned District Judge is based on surmises and conjectures and every individual has fundamental right to get the drinking water and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected in view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy to the revisionist as per Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987.
11. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that findings of learned District Judge that in absence of NOC from landlord who is in litigation with revisionist ad-interim relief could not be granted to revisionist is also contrary to law is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that prima facie revisionist is the tenant and it is also proved on record that prima facie Arvinder Kaur is the landlord of premises.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 8Court is of the opinion that Arvinder Kaur landlord is the necessary party in present case being owner of premises.
It is well settled law that no person should be condemned .
unheard on the concept of audi-alterm-partem. It is also prima facie proved on record that rent deed also executed between the landlord and revisionist and it is held that because of availability of alternative efficacious remedy under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of revisionist as per Clause 41 of Specific Relief Act 1963.
12. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned District Judge has committed serious error by way of holding that revisionist should implead landlord as party or should obtain NOC from landlord and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that landlord is owner of premises and owner of premises in dispute is necessary party in present case because tenant has sought the relief to install new private water connection inside the fore walls of shop owned by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 9 landlord. It is held that landlord has direct and substantial interest in shop in dispute being owner of shop.
13. Another submission of learned Advocate .
appearing on behalf of revisionist that order of learned District Judge is in violation of H.P. Water Supply Rules 1989 and is in violation of National and State Water Policies and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force keeping in view the fact that alternative efficacious remedy is available to the tenant before Rent Controller under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. There is no dispute inter se the parties that H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 is operative upon premises in dispute.
14. In view of above stated facts it is held that revisionist has alternative efficacious remedy under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 and it is held that learned trial Court and learned District Judge Sirmaur at Nahan did not commit any illegality and material irregularity. Orders of learned trial Court and learned first Appellate Court are affirmed with liberty to revisionist to approach Rent Controller under Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987. Parties are left to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP 10 bear their own costs. Revision petition stands disposed of.
All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.
.
(P.S.Rana),
June 03,2015(ms) Judge.
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:30:14 :::HCHP