Sant Lal Vs. Sham Lal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 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. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to 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 maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 1. this is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below on the ground that the premises, in dispute, bed become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. it was pleaded inter alia that the demised premises bed become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, the tenant was liable to ejectment, in the written statement, the tenant denied the said averments the learned rent controller earlier appointed a local commissioner who gave his report dated september 3, 1984, and later on himself mida spot inspaition on october 21,1987. thus, on the basis of the evidence on the record aid site inspection, came to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to eject his tenant on the ground that the portion under his tenancy was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. the findings of the authorities below in this behalf that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation were wrong and illegal. the present litigation was started by the landlord in august 1984, itself it is in evidence that the ceiling of the room under the possession of the tenant had been laid with very old planks and karis which appeared weak and had been eaten by moth and aunts and there was no guarantee that the roof would not fall any time.j.v. gupta, c.j.1. this is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below on the ground that the premises, in dispute, bed become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.2. sham lal, landlord, filed the ejectment application seeking ejectment of his tenant sant lal from the house in dispute. it was pleaded inter alia that the demised premises bed become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, the tenant was liable to ejectment, in the written statement, the tenant denied the said averments the learned rent controller earlier appointed a local commissioner who gave his report dated september 3, 1984, and later on himself mida spot inspaition on october 21,1987. thus, on the basis of the evidence on the record aid site inspection, came to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to eject his tenant on the ground that the portion under his tenancy was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. consequeatly, the ejetment order was passed on october 19, 1987. in appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the rent controller and thus maintained the eviction order.3. according to the tenant petitioner after the spot inspection was made by the rent controller, he should not have decided the ejectmeat application. moreover, the local commissioner inspected the site without any notice to the tenant and in his absence. the findings of the authorities below in this behalf that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation were wrong and illegal.4. after hearing the learned counsel and going through the relevant evidence on the record, i do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below as to be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction.5. event sant lal, tenant, himself admitted that after the rains of 1984, 2/3 bricks of the room in his possession had fallen that he contacted his landlord to get them repaired upon which he was asked to get the repairs carried out himself. the present litigation was started by the landlord in august 1984, itself it is in evidence that the ceiling of the room under the possession of the tenant had been laid with very old planks and karis which appeared weak and had been eaten by moth and aunts and there was no guarantee that the roof would not fall any time. in view, of this concurrent finding, there is an scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.6. consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs however, the tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises ; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the rent controller within one month with an undertaking, in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to landlord.