Smt. Sumitran Devi Vs. Bilu Ram

Smt. Sumitran Devi vs Bilu Ram

Disposition Revision dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 19, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/626198

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/626198
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Kiran Anand Lall, J.
Decided On: Jan 19, 2005
Case Number: Civil Revision No. 1769 of 1992
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Revision 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: Revision dismissed
Acts & sections: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13 and 15(5)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Sumitran Devi

Advocate Gaurav Chopra, Adv.

Respondent

Bilu Ram

Advocate S.C. Chhabra, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13 and 15(5)
Reported In: (2005)141PLR664

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..........order dated 16.2.1990 regarding dismissal of his ejectment petition under section 13 of the act by the rent controller.2. the respondent herein had sought ejectment of the petitioner on two grounds, viz, non-payment of rent and personal necessity. facts pleaded by the parties in respect of the ground of non-payment of rent, need not be stated here, as the rent controller and so also the authority under the act recorded finding with regard thereto, in favour of the petitioner herein. in so far as the other ground, viz. of personal necessity, is concerned, case of billu ram is that his family consists of seven members, viz. self, wife and five children. the premises in possession of his family consist of only one room and a kitchen. his children have since grown up and as such, they require separate accommodation for studies. he, therefore, pleaded that he is in bona fide need of the room which is at present in the occupation of the petitioner and was initially let out to latter's husband (since deceased) somewhere in the year 1979 when his (of respondent) children were small. he further pleaded that he does not own or possess any other residential house, nor he had ever vacated any such house, without any reasonable cause, after the commencement of the act.3. sumitra devi admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but denied the claim of bona fide requirement of bilu ram. she further pleaded that initially the portion under her tenancy consisted of two rooms but after the death of her husband, she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of one room, in favour of bilu ram. according to her, the family of bilu ram is, therefore, in possession of two rooms (and not one), at present. it was further pleaded that ram chander, father of bilu ram, was owner of five houses bearing nos. 276 to 280 situate in street no. 3, ferozepur cantt, and after his death, his legal heirs including bilu ram are joint landlords of all those houses and they.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kiran Anand Lall, J.

1. This revision under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act') is directed against the judgment dated 25.3.1992 of the Appellate Authority (exercising the powers under the Act) allowing appeal of Bilu Ram respondent (landlord) against the order dated 16.2.1990 regarding dismissal of his ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Act by the Rent Controller.

2. The respondent herein had sought ejectment of the petitioner on two grounds, viz, non-payment of rent and personal necessity. Facts pleaded by the parties in respect of the ground of non-payment of rent, need not be stated here, as the Rent Controller and so also the Authority under the Act recorded finding with regard thereto, in favour of the petitioner herein. In so far as the other ground, viz. of personal necessity, is concerned, case of Billu Ram is that his family consists of seven members, viz. self, wife and five children. The premises in possession of his family consist of only one room and a kitchen. His children have since grown up and as such, they require separate accommodation for studies. He, therefore, pleaded that he is in bona fide need of the room which is at present in the occupation of the petitioner and was initially let out to latter's husband (since deceased) somewhere in the year 1979 when his (of respondent) children were small. He further pleaded that he does not own or possess any other residential house, nor he had ever vacated any such house, without any reasonable cause, after the commencement of the Act.

3. Sumitra Devi admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but denied the claim of bona fide requirement of Bilu Ram. She further pleaded that initially the portion under her tenancy consisted of two rooms but after the death of her husband, she relinquished her tenancy rights in respect of one room, in favour of Bilu Ram. According to her, the family of Bilu Ram is, therefore, in possession of two rooms (and not one), at present. It was further pleaded that Ram Chander, father of Bilu Ram, was owner of five houses bearing Nos. 276 to 280 situate in Street No. 3, Ferozepur Cantt, and after his death, his legal heirs including Bilu Ram are joint landlords of all those houses and they have been letting out those to different persons, at different times.

4. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner was not in bona fide need of the tenanted premises. The Appellate Authority having upset this finding and having consequently ordered ejectment of the petitioner, she filed the present revision.

5. After having heard arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties with regard to the finding of Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide personal necessity and having gone through the records, I do not find any merit in the revision.

6. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that though in the written statement, the petitioner tenant had pleaded that the respondent (along with his brothers), owns houses No. 277 to 280, Street No. 3, Ferozepur Cantt. also, she did not refer to any such fact in her deposition, as RW-1, before the Rent Controller. That being so, she cannot be heard to say that respondent owns or possesses some other residential property also, besides the house in question, bearing No. 276, Street No. 3, Ferozepur Cantt.

7. Undisputedly, the respondent has a large family, consisting of seven members, and there are only two rooms (besides a verandah), in their occupation. The room which is in possession of the petitioner had been earlier let out to her husband (since deceased), long back viz. in the year 1979. The children of the respondent have grown up by now and as such his claim that he requires more accommodation for them, for their studies, etc., appears to be bona fide. It was contended that the petitioner-tenant also has a large family. Well, this is no ground to disallow the ejectment petition of the landlord.

8. No doubt, the petitioner and his family have been living in the tenanted premises for the last about 25 years, and it was pleaded that they would face lot of inconvenience if they are asked to vacate the same. But, as rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, this is no ground for denying the rightful claim of the petitioner to get the premises vacated on the ground of his bona fide requirement.

There is, thus, no merit in the revision which shall, therefore, stand dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2005 Same Parties Smt. Sumitran Devi vs Bilu Ram Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Kiran Anand Lall, J. Acts & Sections East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13 an...

Tenancy