Chandia Ram vs B.K. Khanna

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a tenant''s revision petition u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and arises out of ejectment proceedings.

The landlord applied u/s 13 of the Act for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for over three years, that he had impaired the value and utility of the premises, and that he was guilty of acts constituting a nuisance to the neighbourhood.

The tenant opposed the application, alleging that he had been occupying the premises before the property had been purchased by the landlord, that the rent paid by him was Rs. 107.50 P. annually for the accommodation which consisted of two large rooms, one store, a kitchen and a latrine, and that on the acquisition of the property by the present landlord he attorned to him on the same rent upto March 31, 1967. He pleaded that in the year 1968 the landlord obtained possession of the premises for effecting repairs and had promised to return possession of the accommodation to the tenant after completing the repairs. The tenant alleged that after some alterations had been effected to the accommodation, the premises were let out to others without his knowledge and he was left with materially reduced accommodation. It was also alleged that when the landlord refused to restore possession of the original accommodation in its entirety, the parties settled on payment of Rs. 107.50 paise by way of rent for the reduced accommodation. The tenant pleaded further that although he sent rent to the landlord on that basis, it was not accepted and therefore he deposited the rent at that rate in the court of the Learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Simla.

The Rent Controller, Simla, by his order dated September 16, 1972, held in favour of the landlord''s case that a rent of Rs. 75/- per mensem had been settled with the tenant after the accommodation had been improved by the incorporation of additional amenities and repairs, that the rent tendered by the tenant was short and therefore that tender was invalid. He also held that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the premises. The allegation that he had committed acts constituting a nuisance was rejected. Accordingly, he directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises.

On appeal by the tenant, two questions were raised before the Appellate Authority, Simla. The first question concerned the rate of rent payable by the tenant and the second related to the allegation that he had impaired the value and utility of the premises. The Appellate Authority has upheld the finding of the Rent Controller in respect of the rate of rent, but has reversed the finding that the tenant was guilty of impairing the value and utility of the premises. In the result the appeal was dismissed.

The first contention on behalf of the tenant is that the order of ejectment, having been made on September 16, 1972, was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, had come into force on November 5, 1971, and with effect from that date the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act stood repealed by virtue of Section 28(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Act. The contention has no substance, because Section 28(2) provides that notwithstanding such repeal all proceedings under the East Punjab Act pending at the commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Act before any authority will be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Act as if that Act had continued in force and the Himachal Pradesh Act had not been passed. By the first proviso to Section 28(2) an exception has been made in the case of a pending suit and in respect of proceedings u/s 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent or eviction against widows, minor sons or unmarried daughters of a tenant. Such proceedings have to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Act. The second proviso to Section 28(2) lays down that proceedings for appeal under the repealed Act will continue in force in respect of suits and proceedings disposed of thereunder. There is no doubt in my mind that the ejectment application, out of which the present revision petition arises, had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Act. Those provisions include the provision conferring jurisdiction on the Rent Controller and keep alive the notifications issued under the Act for that purpose. The challenge directed against the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of want of competence must fail. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the rule laid down in Major (Retd.) P.L. Morada v. Shri S.D. Bakshi ILR (1974) HP. 217, on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the tenant, does not come into play.

The second contention before me is that it is not open to the landlord to raise the rent unilaterally and that proceedings for determination of the standard rent should have been resorted to. Reference has been made to Dhan Rai Jayna v. S.P. Singh AIR 1973 Del. 297. The contention has no force because it appears to have been the common case of the parties that they had agreed to a certain rate of rent. The only dispute is what was that agreed rate of rent.

The revision petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.