Ashok Kumar Sood vs Sardar Darshan Singh

By the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2018, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in Civil Revision No. 99 of 2018, confirmed the orders passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court permitting the respondent to re-enter the suit premises as a tenant as per Section 14(5) of the Himachal Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter "the Act").

The records reveal that the petitioner herein is the landlord of the suit premises, which is a building consisting of ground floor and three floors. The petitioner had earlier filed an eviction petition before concerned authority, against the four tenants residing in each floor of the suit premises respectively. The reason for seeking eviction was that it was necessary to get the building demolished, as it was in a dilapidated condition and for reconstruction.

Accordingly, eviction order dated 14.09.2004 was passed against the four tenants and the same was confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter, an execution petition was filed against all the four tenants for taking possession of the suit premises. The tenants of the 2nd floor and 3rd floor have vacated the premises. The respondent herein, who was the tenant of the ground floor, also vacated the suit premises in the year 2013 to make way for the petitioner to demolish and reconstruct the building.

However, the tenant on the first floor, namely, one Mr. B.M. Kapila, did not vacate the premises and kept raising one or the other objection in the execution proceedings. Later, his legal representatives also came on record before the Executing Court so as to pursue objections in the execution proceedings. Hence, the fact remains that the execution petition filed against B.M. Kapila is still pending before the Executing Court.

Against this backdrop, the respondent filed an application for re-entry to the ground floor of the suit premises, under Section 14(5) read with Section 14(3)(c) of the Act, on the ground that the landlord has not fulfilled the purpose for which eviction was undertaken. The Rent Controller, Shimla, granted permission to the respondent to re-enter the premises as a tenant, and this was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the High Court. As against these orders, this appeal has been filed by the petitioner-landlord. While issuing notice in this petition, this Court had issued interim order in favour of the petitioner for staying the impugned judgment of the High Court.

It is not disputed that the respondent is entitled to re-enter the suit premises after construction of the new building. The order of eviction dated 14.09.2004 (supra) was passed against him so as to facilitate the petitioner to reconstruct the building and allow the concerned tenants to re-enter the premises, including the respondent.

It is further admitted that execution proceedings are pending since 2012 against B.M. Kapila. The copy of the order sheet/proceeding sheet maintained by the Executing Court discloses that the execution proceedings are being pursued with all seriousness by the petitioner. However, applications have been filed by B.M. Kapila and his family objecting to the execution petition. Hence, reconstruction of the suit premises is yet to be undertaken.

Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the respondent to re-enter the premises at this stage. However, in order to do justice between the parties, it is necessary to issue a direction to the Executing Court to decide the execution petition filed against B.M. Kapila and his family at an early date. Accordingly, the following order is made:

i) The Rent Controller, Shimla shall decide the execution petition Nos. 18-20 of 2012 against Mr. B.M. Kapila and his family members not later than six months from the date of receiving this order.

ii) No further application or objection shall be entertained by the Rent Controller, from any of the parties herein or from any third party, during the course of the aforesaid execution proceedings.

The petitioner shall, after getting possession of the suit premises from all the tenants, including Mr. B.M. Kapila and his family, demolish and reconstruct the building as per the sanctioned plan.

It is needless to say, as the Rent Controller had previously ordered on 14.06.2013, the respondent-tenant is entitled to re-enter the premises after completion of all pending execution proceedings and reconstruction of the building by the petitioner-landlord. Failing which, the respondent-tenant will be at liberty to pursue the remedies available to him.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.