Sant Ram vs Manohar Lal and Others

Bhawani Singh, J.—This revision arises out of the order of Sub Judge (3), Shimla dated 14-11-1983 whereby the objections raised by the tenant in the execution application for eviction have been dismissed.

Facts, brefeatly are that the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant before Rent Controller, Shimla for non payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 475/- per annum in addition to municipal taxes. It was contested by the tenant and his case was that the annual rent of the premises is Rs. 340/- exclusive of municipal tax and not Rs. 475/- inclusive of municipal tax. The Rent Controller decided that rate of rent was Rs. 340/- per annum besides taxes and it was found that the tenant was in arrears of rent, therefore, order for his eviction was passed. In accordance with the provisions of Section 14 (2) second proviso, the tenant deposited the arrears of rent along with municipal taxes, cost of the petition and interest within 30 days of the Court''s order.

The matter was taken to the appellate Court by the landlord where the challenge was confined to the finding of the Rent Controller as to the rent for the premises. Accordingly, the matter was heard and decided in favor of the landlord as a result of which the tenant moved revision petition in this Court the same was dismissed. It is pertinent to say here that after the decision of the appeal by the appellate Court on 13-4-1979, the balance rent payment towards the rent was made on 21-5-1979. This being a delayed payment, the tenant rendered himself liable for eviction from the premises and with this end in view, the landlord moved execution proceedings before the Sub-Judge (3) Shimla, wherein number of objections were raised but the claim of the tenant was rejected, hence this appeal.

The first contention raised by Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the tenant was that the payment of rent was made within 30 days from 19-5-1979 since it was on this day that Shri G.D. Verma, who was his counsel, came to know of the decision in this case when he went to the Copying Agency for obtaining certified copy of the order, therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the period of 30 days should be counted from the date of knowledge of the order. It was also asserted that the appellate Court heard the arguments on 13-4-1979 but did not in fact announce the judgment. This case of the tenant has been strongly opposed by the Respondents'' counsel Shri Arun Kumar Goel who contended that the appellate authority not only heard the arguments but also announced the decision. After looking into the record of this case, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the submission of the tenant''s counsel for the reason that the case was not only heard on 13-4-1979 but the decision was also announced on the same day. This conclusion is based on the statement of Shri S.S. Kanwar, Retired District and Sessions Judge, who decided this case as an appellate authority. Further, it is clear from the statement of the Court Reader who had written the Court''s order of that day on the. instructions of the appellate authority. Then there is statement of the landlord who has stated that he was present in the Court on that date. It is also apparent from fact that Shri G.D. Verma, counsel for the tenant had moved an application for the copy of this order and the grounds of the appeal on 19-9-1979 (Sic) and these copies were used in the revision application filed in this Court. This means, the tenant and his counsel were aware of the passing of this order otherwise there was no reason for moving the application seeking the copy of this order on 19-9-1979 (Sic). The contention that they are not aware of this order as a result of which they sought time from the Rent Controller for filing reply in another rent application between the same parties does not improve the case since mere seeking of time and withdrawing of reply in the absence of anything on the record indicating the reason for the withdrawal of the reply and seeking for more time, no conclusion favourable to the tenant can be drawn. The result is, therefore that the period should be counted from 19-5-1979 is rejected. The period mentioned under the Act cannot be extended by the Court [See K. N. Trading Co. v. Masonic Fraternity of Shirnla ILR 1982 (HP 279. There is also no substance in the second contention of the tenant''s counsel that there is merger of appellate Court''s order in the order passed by this Court on the revision application and the rent was paid before the revision application was dismissed for the reason that principle of merger does not apply in this kind of cases. The decision of various authorities are final and executable unless the same is set aside by the higher authority. The deposit as required under the Act has to be made within 30 days and this cannot be extended for any reason whatsoever ( K.N. Trading Co. Case).

Equally untenable is the plea that the landlord is stopped from evicting the tenant since, after seeking the order of eviction in this case he moved another rent petition thus admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties thereby rendering the present proceeding in executable for the reason that the fresh petition was based upon independent cause of action and was thus legally maintainable.

Perusal of impugned order discloses that the matter has been examined by the Sub Judge (3), Shimla quite seriously and exhaustively. There is, therefore, no justification to take any other view in this case. The result is there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.