Skip to content


The Ideal Sports Goods Production Coop. Industrial Society Vs. Lt. Col. Jitender Kumar (Retd.) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Tenancy

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Revision No. 3167 of 1993

Judge

Reported in

(1996)112PLR286

Acts

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 - Sections 13A and 15(6)

Appellant

The Ideal Sports Goods Production Coop. Industrial Society

Respondent

Lt. Col. Jitender Kumar (Retd.)

Appellant Advocate

 Surya Kant, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Party in Person

Disposition

Petition dismissed

Excerpt:


.....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..........3431 of 1991), a learned single judge of this court, to a contention similar to the one which has been raised before me regarding partial ejectment, observed as under:-'even if the need of respondent no.1 can be satisfied by passing an order of eviction with respect to a part of the demised premises, in law it is not possible to divide the tenancy of the petitioner qua the demised premises which is in respect of the whole of it as a single unit. the respondents are, therefore, entitled to an order of eviction with respect to the entire demised premises.'6. the learned single judge, therefore, proceeded on the assumption that the tenant has to be ejected from the entire premises which were in his occupation.7. in view of the findings recorded in the ejectment petition, the point raised by the judgment debtor in the execution does not merit any serious consideration. the findings recorded in the ejectment petition are clear and unambiguous and the judgment-debtor is liable to be evicted from the entire premises which were let out to it by smt. bhagwanti, mother of the decree-holders. this petition has, therefore, no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs......

Judgment:


Ashok Bhan, J.

1. One Smt. Bhagwanti was the owner of the tenanted premises. She had let out the tenanted premises to the petitioner-Judgment Debtor (hereinafter referred to as' the Judgment Debtor') at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month. Smt. Bhagwanti died on 1.7.1986. On the basis of a Registered Will dated 10.8.1981, respondent-Decree holders (hereinafter referred to as 'the Decree holders') (who were serving in the Army, filed a petition Under Section 13 (13-A) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, on the ground of personal necessity. Rent Controller dismissed the petition against which the decree holders filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Authority, Karnal. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, Judgment Debtor filed C.R. 3431 of 1991, which was dismissed by this Court on 28.5.1992. Ejectment was sought from the premises known as Plot Nos. 120 to 127 of Subhash Nagar, Tehsil Camp G.T. Road, Panipat which was shown in the site plan attached and bounded as under:-

'East: Property No. 128 and property of others.

West: G.T. Road.

North: 20ft. Wide street.

South: 20ft. wide street, after the other property of petitioners.'

2. It was further alleged that the premises in dispute had been let out to the Judgment-Debtor at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month by creating a single tenancy.

3. After the order of ejectment attained finality, decree-holders filed an application for execution of the decree. In response to the same, decree-holder vacated a portion of the tenanted premises. Qua the remaining portion, an objection was taken that no decree had been passed as there was no prayer of the decree-holders to get the judgment-debtor evicted from the said portion. Objection filed by the judgment-debtor were dismissed, against which the present revision petition has been filed by the judgment-debtor.

4. Counsel for the judgment-debtor as well as one of the decree-holders who appeared in person have been heard.

5. It is the admitted case of the parties that only a single tenancy qua the premises in dispute was created, the rent of which was fixed at RS. 700/- per month. Qua the premises inherited by the decree-holders from their mother regarding which she had created the tenancy an ejectment order was passed. Although, the judgment-debtor in its written statement filed to the ejectment petition had taken the objection that the landlords were seeking eviction from a portion of the tenanted premises and, therefore, the ejectment petition was not maintainable but no issue on this was framed. The Courts proceeded on the assumption that there was single tenancy of the entire premises and the eviction petition had been filed qua the whole of the tenanted premises. There was no issue regarding partial ejectment of the tenant. While disposing of the revision petition (C.R. 3431 of 1991), a learned Single Judge of this Court, to a contention similar to the one which has been raised before me regarding partial ejectment, observed as under:-

'Even if the need of respondent No.1 can be satisfied by passing an order of eviction with respect to a part of the demised premises, in law it is not possible to divide the tenancy of the petitioner qua the demised premises which is in respect of the whole of it as a single unit. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to an order of eviction with respect to the entire demised premises.'

6. The learned Single Judge, therefore, proceeded on the assumption that the tenant has to be ejected from the entire premises which were in his occupation.

7. In view of the findings recorded in the ejectment petition, the point raised by the judgment debtor in the execution does not merit any serious consideration. The findings recorded in the ejectment petition are clear and unambiguous and the judgment-debtor is liable to be evicted from the entire premises which were let out to it by Smt. Bhagwanti, mother of the decree-holders. This petition has, therefore, no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judgment-debtor is, however, granted a period of two months to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the decree-holders subject to the condition that it pays/deposits all arrears of rent due upto 31.7.1995 on or before 31.8.1995 and also pays/deposits the rent for the next two months in advance by the said date.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //