Madan Gopal Vs. Sunder Singh

Madan Gopal vs Sunder Singh

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Apr 07, 2004

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/618098

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/618098
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: H.S. Bedi, J.
Decided On: Apr 07, 2004
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 386 of 1984
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority imitation Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly con...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 19

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madan Gopal

Advocate Ashok Jindal, Adv.

Respondent

Sunder Singh

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 19
Reported In: (2004)137PLR839

Excerpt

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........the year 1982-83 was leviable, the sum of rs. 94/- taken by the landlord on that count was without authority and as such the landlord was liable to be prosecuted under section 19 of the act. the landlord admitted that the aforesaid amount had in fact under a misconception, been accepted by him, but was it further pleaded that he had not been aware of the fact that for the year 1982-83 the building in question had been exempted from the payment of house tax. the rent controller disbelieving the statement of the landlord allowed the application by the impugned order and directed that he be prosecuted.2. this matter came up for motion hearing on 12.3.1984, on which date notice was issued and the operation of the impugned order was stayed meanwhile. the respondent though served, remains un-represented before me today.3. i have heard mr. ashok jindal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.4. admittedly the house tax was earlier leviable on the building in question, but a notification, granting exemption for the year 1982-83 was issued. it is in this background, the landlord had contended that he had taken the house tax under a mistaken impression as he had been accepting it for the year 1.1.1962 to 31.3.1967, 1975-76 and 1976-77. the relevant provisions of sections 9 and 19 both are reproduced below:-'9. increase of rent on account of payment of rates, etc. of local authority, but rent not to be increased on account of payment of other taxes, etc.- (1) notwithstanding anything taxes, in any other provision of this act a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or rented land if after the commencement of this act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the act.''19. penalties.- (1) it any person contravenes any of the provisions of.....

Full Judgment

H.S. Bedi, J.

1. This petition arises out of an order dated 10.10.1983 made under Section 19(1)(3) read with Section 9(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the averments made in the application, which has been filed by the tenant, he was in occupation of a house belonging to the landlord-petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The landlord filed an application for ejectment against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent and house tax. In order to avoid his eviction, the tenant tendered a sum of Rs. 1040/- towards rent, Rs. 40/- as interest, Rs. 94/- as house tax and Rs. 40/- as cost in Court on 15.4.1983, on which the application for ejectment was dismissed on that date. The tenant thereafter filed the present application pleading that as no house tax for the year 1982-83 was leviable, the sum of Rs. 94/- taken by the landlord on that count was without authority and as such the landlord was liable to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Act. The landlord admitted that the aforesaid amount had in fact under a misconception, been accepted by him, but was it further pleaded that he had not been aware of the fact that for the year 1982-83 the building in question had been exempted from the payment of house tax. The Rent Controller disbelieving the statement of the landlord allowed the application by the impugned order and directed that he be prosecuted.

2. This matter came up for motion hearing on 12.3.1984, on which date notice was issued and the operation of the impugned order was stayed meanwhile. The respondent though served, remains un-represented before me today.

3. I have heard Mr. Ashok Jindal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order.

4. Admittedly the house tax was earlier leviable on the building in question, but a notification, granting exemption for the year 1982-83 was issued. It is in this background, the landlord had contended that he had taken the house tax under a mistaken impression as he had been accepting it for the year 1.1.1962 to 31.3.1967, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The relevant provisions of Sections 9 and 19 both are reproduced below:-

'9. Increase of rent on account of payment of rates, etc. of local authority, but rent not to be increased on account of payment of other taxes, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything taxes, in any other provision of this Act a landlord shall be entitled to increase the rent of a building or rented land if after the commencement of this Act a fresh rate, cess or tax is levied in respect of the building or rented land by any local authority, or if there is an increase in the amount of such a rate, cess or tax being levied at the commencement of the Act.'

'19. Penalties.- (1) It any person contravenes any of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 9, Sub-section (1) of Section 10 Section 11 or Section 18, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

(2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section 1 of Section 6 or Sub-section (1) of Sub-section 7 he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and with fine.

(3) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this section except upon-

(a) a complaint of facts which constitute such offence filed with the sanction of the controller in writing, or

(b) a report in writing of such facts made by the Controller.'

5. A reading of Section 9(1) would reveal that a landlord is entitled to an increasein the rent on the increase of the house tax etc. It does not deal with a situation wherebythe landlord has recovered the house tax from the tenant on account of a misconception.Admittedly, the landlord has not tried to increase the rent, but he has by mistake takenthe house tax for the year 1982-83 when the building had been exempted from housetax for that year. Admittedly the house tax had been levied and paid for several yearsearlier. At most, therefore, it can be said that the landlord has committed a mistake inaccepting the aforesaid amount. In this situation the order impugned is not sustainable.This petition is allowed and the application filed by the tenant is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2004 Same Parties Madan Gopal vs Sunder Singh Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge H.S. Bedi, J. Acts & Sections East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 19

Tenancy