Charan Singh and anr. Vs. Patram

Charan Singh and anr. vs Patram

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 26, 1990

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/624944

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/624944
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: J.V. Gupta, C.J.
Decided On: Feb 26, 1990
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 1757 of 1988
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract Rejection of highest bid Challenge as to Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(2) and 15(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Charan Singh and anr.

Advocate G.S. Bal, Adv.

Respondent

Patram

Advocate B.M. Lal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(2) and 15(5)
Cases Referred: and Smt. Sita Devi v. Chaman Lal
Reported In: (1991)99PLR548

Excerpt

.....statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to..........to charan singh and not to the father and the son, as claimed by the, tenant. it was further found that the tenant charan singh had taken on rent another building from one gyani where he was doing the business of washing clothes etc thus, from the facts of the present case, it was held that the demised premises were in exclusive possession of gurnam singh son of the tenant and that he was the proprietor of the business being done in the said shop. a further finding was also given that it was clear that charan singh had left the possession of the premises by taking other shop on rent from one gyani as admitted by him and he had handed over the exclusive possession to him. in view of these findings, the eviction order was passed.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the mere taking another room for doing business by the tenant charan singh does not mean that he was no mere in occupation of the demised premises according to the learned counsel, it was an allied business which was being done there and, therefore, both the father and the son are in occupation of the demised premises, according to the learned counsel, the findings of the appellate authority in this behalf are wrong and illegal. in support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon kihan chand v. gobind ram, (1985-2) 88 p. l. r. 194.4. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the tenant had taken another shop for doing his business, he was no more in occupation of the demised premises. moreover, the business done in the demised premises is owned by his son only and ho was in exclusive possession thereof. thus, argued the learned counsel the finding of the appellate authority in this behalf was perfectly valid and could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction in support of the contention, reliance was placed on prem kumar v. yash pal, (1985-1) 87 p. l. r. 525 and smt. sita devi v. chaman lal, (1983-1) 87 p. l. r. 525.5. after.....

Full Judgment

J.V. Gupta, C.J.

1. This is tenant's petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rest Controller but the eviction order was passed in appeal.

2. Pat Ram, landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant from a room in a residential building situated at Kharar. It was alleged that Charan Singh, was tenant in the demised promised at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month Charan Singh had sublet the premises to his son Gurnam Singh who was in exclusive possession of the demised premises and, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. A plea was also takes that' since the demised premises were a part of the residential building, the landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation as he had a large family and the accommodation in his possession was insufficient to meet his requirement, The petition was contested alia on the ground that the premises were let out to both the father and the son, Thus, there was no question of sub-Jetting, as alleged. The landlord was in occupation of sufficient accommodation for his use and occupation. The Rent Controller found that the tenant Charan Singh was not proved to have walked out of the premises. The premises, in question, were a shop and not a residential building and that it was given on teat as a shop and the sub letting was not proved. As regards the ground of personal necessity, the learned Rent Controller found that it was an afterthought that it was raised at the last stage by way of amendment. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed, In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the demised premises were rented out only to Charan Singh and not to the father and the son, as claimed by the, tenant. It was further found that the tenant Charan Singh had taken on rent another building from one Gyani where he was doing the business of washing clothes etc Thus, from the facts of the present case, it was held that the demised premises were in exclusive possession of Gurnam Singh son of the tenant and that he was the proprietor of the business being done in the said shop. A further finding was also given that it was clear that Charan Singh had left the possession of the premises by taking other shop on rent from one Gyani as admitted by him and he had handed over the exclusive possession to him. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the mere taking another room for doing business by the tenant Charan Singh does not mean that he was no mere in occupation of the demised premises According to the learned counsel, it was an allied business which was being done there and, therefore, both the father and the son are in occupation of the demised premises, According to the learned counsel, the findings of the appellate authority in this behalf are wrong and illegal. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Kihan Chand v. Gobind Ram, (1985-2) 88 P. L. R. 194.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the tenant had taken another shop for doing his business, he was no more in occupation of the demised premises. Moreover, the business done in the demised premises is owned by his son only and ho was in exclusive possession thereof. Thus, argued the learned counsel the finding of the appellate authority in this behalf was perfectly valid and could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Prem Kumar v. Yash Pal, (1985-1) 87 P. L. R. 525 and Smt. Sita Devi v. Chaman Lal, (1983-1) 87 P. L. R. 525.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the patties and going through the evidence on the record, I do sot find any illegality, in the findings of the appellate authority as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction.

6. The case set up by the tenant was that the premises were let out to both the father and the son which fact was belied when the notice was given on behalf of the tenant to the landlord vide copy Exhibit A 1 This notice was issued only on behalf of Charasn Singh through his learned counsel It is therefore, evident that the tenant bad failed to prove that the demised premises were let out to both the father and the son if the premises were let out to Charan Singh only and he was no more in occupation of the same and they were occupied by his son only who is the proprietor of the business being done these and the tenant is in occupation of another shop rented out by him from one Gyani, it is a clear case of subletting. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises. Provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the undertaking in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession of the premises would be handed over to the landlord are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1990 Same Parties Charan Singh and anr. vs Patram Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge J.V. Gupta, C.J. Acts & Sections East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13(2)...

Tenancy