SH. DEWAN CHAND BHALLAversusDR. ASHOK KUMAR BHOIL

A                       SH. DEWAN CHAND BHALLA
                                          v.                                         ,
                          DR. ASHOK KUMAR BHOIL

                                   JULY 22, 1994

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

          Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987:

          Section 14(3)(a)(iv)
c          Tenant-Govt., employee-Allotment of reasonable sufficient Govern·
    ment residential accommodation tr>-Right of landlord to seek eviction-Such
    a tenant cannot resist landlord's eviction petition on the ground that he lost
    the allotted residence by surrender.

D         Constitution of India 1950 : Article 136.

          Appeal by special leave-fl.eagitation of issue against concurrent find·
    ings of fact-Permissibility of

          The appellant-tenant, a Government servant, was allotted Govern·
E ment residence by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Respondent·
  landlord filed a petition before the Controller under Section 14(3)(a)(O of
  the Himachal Pradesh urban Rent Control Act, 1971 which entitled a
  landlord to get possession of a residential building from his tenant when
  such tenant was allotted a residence which was reasonably sufficient for
F his requirements. The appellant contended that he could not be evicted
  because (i) the residence allotted to him by the Govemment was not
  reasonably sufficient for his requirements and (ii) he has surrendered the
  residence alloted to him. Rejecting both the contentions the Controller
  allowed the landlord's aplication and directed the appellant to band over
  possession of residential building to the Respondent. On appeal by tenant
G the appellate authority affirmed the Controller's order. The appellant filed
  a revision petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. During
  the pendency of the Revision Petition, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent
  Control Act, 1987 came into force and consequently the petition had be
  decided under the corresponding provision in section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the
H 1987 Act. The High Court dismissed the Petition holding that (i) the
                                          86
                            O.C. BHALLA v. A.K. BHOIL                         87


It
     material on record clearly established that the allotted residence was         A
     reasonably sufficient for appellant's requirements; and (ii) he cannot
     resist grant of such aplication on the ground of having lost the allotted
     residence by surrender.

           In appeal to this Court, Counsel for the appellant was not permitted
     to address his arguments on the finding that the residence allotted to         B
     tenant by the Government was reasonably sufficient for his requirements
     as it was not a matter which could be permitted to be reagitated in an
     appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. As regards
     the other ground it was contended that the High Court erred in holding
     that the landlord would be entitled to get possession under section            C
     14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act even where the residence alloted to the tenant
     by the Government was surrendered and lost by him before eviction
     application was made inasmuch as that view had the effect of laking a way
     the protection given by the 1987 Act to a tenant from eviction of the
     tenanted building.
                                                                                    D
           Dismissing the appeal, this court

             HELD : 1. The High Court's view does not call for interference in
     this appeal. A tenant of a residential building who being allotted a
     residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements becomes liable for        E
     eviction from the residential building on an application made by his
     landlord under section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent
     Control Act, 1987 cannot resist the grant of such application on the ground
     that he lost the allotted residence by surrender made either before or after
     the filing of such application. [93-A, BJ
                                                                                    F
           2. No doubt, the 1987 Act seeks to protect the tenants from eviction
     from the tenanted lands or buildings by their landlords. Section 14(1) of
     the 1987 Act itself forbids eviction of a tenant in possession of a building
     or rented land even in execution of a decree passed or otherwise. But, it
     cannot be overlooked that that section itself declares that a tenant could     G
     be evicted from the tenanted building or land if such eviction is permitted
     under any other provisions of the 1987 Act and removes the cloak of
     protection given to certain tenants. Section 14(3)(a)(iv) is one of such
     other provisions in the 1987 Act. [91-C, DJ

          3. Clear and unequivocal words employed in section 14(3)(a)(iv) give H
    88                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994J SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A not 5l:llp.e_for a_!e_n~nLto say that the accrued entitlement or right of the
    landlord to gel back possession of the residential building from him under
    the provision is Jost when he parts with possession of residence which had
    come to him in one or the other ways referred to therein. To hold that the
    provision enables the te~unt to make his landlord lose his right to recover
    possession of the residential building accrued thereunder by the tenant
B
    parting with possession of residence got by him either before or after the
    application is made by the landlord under the provision would amount to
    sa~ing that the tenant, by having recourse to certain means, could defeat
    the accured right of the landlord to get possession of the residential
    building. (92-D to Fl
c
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3019 of
    1990.
             '
         From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.90 of the Himachal Pradesh
    High Court in C.R.P. No. 111 of 1986.
D
            Uma Datta for the Appellant.

            E.C. Agrawala for the Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
          VENKATACHALA, J. The question that needs our consideration and
    decision in this appeal by special leave is : can a tenant of a residential
    building who is allotted a residence reasonably sufficient for his require-
    ments and becomes liable for eviction from that residential building on an
    application made by his landlord under Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the
F   Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. 1987 - 'the 1987 Act' - resist
    grant of such application on the ground of having lost the allotted residence
    by surrender.

            Antecedent facts are briefly these :
G          The appellant was a tenant of a residential building, Shop No. 6
     Second Floor. Chhota Shimla Bazar. Shimla under its owners. When that
     residential building was sold by its owners to the respondent, under a
     registered sale deed dated 23.9.1982, the appellant became the tenant of
     the respondent in respect of it, by accepting him as his landlord. However,
H    by then, the appellant was in possession of a residence allotted to him as
                D.C.BHALLA v. AK.BHOIL[VENKATACHALA,J.]                         89

     a Government servant of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Since the                 A
     provision in S.14{3)(a)(I) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control
•    Act. 1971 - 'the 1971 Act' entitled a landlord to get possession of a
     residential building from bis tenant when such tenant was allotted a
     residence which was reasonably sufficient for his requirements, the respon-
    dent (landlord) issued a notice dated 20.10.1982 to the appellant (tenant)
                                                                                      B
     calling upon him to give possession of the residential building according to
     the said provision. But, the appellant did not give possession of the residen-
     tial building to the respondent as required by the said notice. Instead, the
     appellant chose to lose possession of the allotted residence by surrendering
    it to the Government. The respondent who did not get possession of the
     residential building from the appellant despite notice issued in that regard,    C
     made an application under section 14(3)(a)(I) of the 1971 Act before the
    Controller seeking eviction of the tenant from the residential building.
     However, the appellant resisted grant of that application on two grounds :
    (i) that the residence which was allotted to him for his residence being not
    reasonably sufficient for his requirements he could not be evicted from the       D
     residential building under Section 14(3)(a)(I) of the 1971 Act, and (ii) that
    the residence allotted to him, when had been lost by surrender, be could
    not be evicted from the residential building under Section 14{3)(a)(I) .;f
    the 1971 Act. The grounds on which the application of respondent was
    resisted did not find favour with the Controller and were rejected by him
    as unmerited and untenable by his order dated 10.4.1985 with a direction          E
    given thereunder to the appellant to put the respondent in possession of
    the residential building. That order of the Controller though impugned by
    the appellant in an appeal filed before the appellate authority under the
    1971 Act that appeal was dismissed resulting in affirmation of the order of
    the Controller. Thereafter, on 6.4.1986 the appellant filed a revision petiton    F
    before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was the Revisional
    Authority under the 1971 Act impugning the order of the Controller, as
    well as, the Appellate Authority.

          When the said revision petition filed under the 1971 Act was pending        G
    disposal by the Revisional Authority - the High Court, the 1987 Act was
    brought into force with effect from 17.11.1971, the date on which the 1971
    Act had come into force. The 1987 Act which repealed the 1971 Act, as
    well, required disposal of every application, appeal, or revision petition,
    pending decision under any provision of the 1971 Act before the Control-
    ler. Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority, in accordance with          H
    90                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the corresponding provision of the 1987 Act as if the corresponding
   provision contained in the latter Act was at the relevant time, in force.
   Therefore, the High Court, before which the revision petition of the
   appellant was pending disposal as a Revisional Authority under the 1971
   Act had to decide that revision petition in accordance with the provision
B in Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act. Thereafter, the High Court which
   heard the Revision petition of the appellant, dismissed the same by its
   considered order dated 5.4.1990. On the first ground of resistence which
   had been' put forth by the appellant against the grant of application of the
   respondent for eviction, to wit, that the residence which had been allotted
   to the appellant as a Government servant, was not reasonably sufficient for
C his reuirements, the High Court has found it to be unavailable to the
   appellant on its view that the material on record clearly established that .
   the allotted residence was reasonable sufficient for his requirements. Com-
   ing to the second ground of resistence put forth by the appellant against
   the grant of application of the respondent for eviction, the High Court has
D found that the appellant who was allotted a residence reasonably sufficient
   for his requirements and became liable for eviction from that residential
   building on an application made by the landlord under section 14(3)(a)(iv)
   of the 1987 Act cannot resist grant of such application on the ground of
 ~ having lost the allotted residence, by surrender, and hence that ground of
   resistence was untenable. The appellant has assailed the said order of
E dismissal of his revision petition by the High Court by filing the present
   appeal by special leave. At the hearing of the appeal by us we did not
   permit the learned counsel for the appellant to address his arguments
   relating to rejection of first ground of resistence put forth by the appellant-
   tenant against the grant of respondent's application for eviction since the
F rejection of that ground was based on its factual finding that the residence
   allotted to him by the Government was reasonably sufficient for his re-
   quirements and that it was not a matter which could be permitted to be
   reagitated in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitu-
   tion.

G         However, as the arguments sought to be addressed on behalf of the
    appellant-tenant as regards second ground of resistance of the appellant
    put forth against the grant of application of the respondent filed under
    section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act but rejected by the High Court, we
    allowed the learned counsel for the appellant to argue since the argument
H   related to construction to be placed on section 14(3)(iv) of the 1987 Act.
            D.C. BHALLA v. AK. BHOIL[VENKATACHALAJ.)                      91

The High Court, it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant, was         A
not right in its view that a landlord would be entitled to get possession of
the residential building in occupation of his tenant by making an applica-
tion udner section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act even where the residence
which had been allotted to the tenant by the Government was surrendered
and lost by him before such application was made under that provision in        B
that it had failed to see that that view had the effect of taking away the
protection given by the 1987 Act to a tenant from eviction of the tenanted
building and hence result in defeating its object. We find it difficult to
accept the argument so advanced on behalf of the tenant. No doubt, the
1987 Act seeks to protect the tenant from eviction from the tenanted lands
or buildings by their landlord, in that Section 14(i) of the 1987 Act itself    C
forbids eviction of a tenant in possession of a building or rented land even
in execution of a decree passed or otherwise. But, it cannot be overlooked
that that section itself declares that a tenant could be evicted from the
tenanted building or land if such evicti~n is permitted under any other
provisions of the 1987 Act and removes the cloak of protection given to         D
certain tenants. Section 14(3)(a)(iv) being one of such other provisions in
the 1987 Act with which we are now concerned. it could be exceroted :

        "14(1) ........ .

             (2) ...........                                                    E
            (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order
        directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession :-

             (a) in the case of a residential building, if-
                                                                                F
             (i) ................ .

             (ii) ............... .

             (m) .............. .
                                                                                G
            (iv) the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement
        of this Act, built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted,
        a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements; 11

     As it is the said provision in the 1987 Act which is invoked by the
respondent-landlord to get possession of the residential building from the      H
    92                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A appellant-tenant, we could examine its scope and ambit inasmuch as such
   examination ci>uld also facilitate a proper appreciation of the arguments
   advanced thereon. the landlord's right to obtain possession of a residential
   building in the occupation of a tenant under the said provision accrues, as
   becomes clear from the plain words employed therein, when the tenant
B either before the commencement of the Act, that is, 17.11.1971 or after the
   commencement of the Act, that is, 17.11.1971, has built or acquired vacant
   possession of or been allotted a residence, reasonably sufficient for his
   requirements. If that is so, can it be said that it is open to a tenant who
   builds, acquires vacant possession of or is allotted a residence, reasonably
C sufficient for his requirements, either before or after the commencement
   of the Act, and thereby entitles the landlord to make an application under
   the provision to get possession of residential building from such tenant to
   defeat such entitlement of the landlord, by parting with the residence got
   by him either before or after the landlord makes such application. Clear
D and unequivocal words employed in the said provision give no scope for a
   tenant to say that the accrued entitlement or right of the landlord to get
   back possession of the residential building from him under the.provision is
   lost when he (tenant) parts with possession of residence which had come
   to him in one or the other ways referred to therein. To hold that the
   provision enables the tenant to make his landlord lose his right to recover
E possession of the residential building accrued thereunder by the tenant
   parting with possession of residence got by him either before or after the
   application is made by the landlord under the provision would amount to
   sayicg that the tenant, by having recourse to certain means, could defeat
   the accrued right of the landlord to get possession of the residential
F building. But, we cannot say so since that could result in encouraging
   unscrupulous tenants to practice deceit against landlords by adoption of
   some trick or strategy which could defeat their valuable accrued rights. As
   the landlord's right to obtain possession of tenanted permises from the
   tenant when it is unauthorisedly sublet cannot be defeated by a ienant
G ·cancelling the sub-lease before or after an application for eviction is made
   by the landlord on that ground, so also a landlord's right to obtain posses-
   sion of the residential building when the tenant gets a separate residence
   as indicated in the provision, cannot be permitted to be defeated by the
   tenant parting with possession of such residence before or after an applica-
H tion is made by .the landlord under that provision. What we have said being
           D.CBHALLA v.A.K.BHOIL[VENKATACHALA,J.]                          93

under the scope and ambit of provision in section 14(3)(a)(iv) we are A
impelled to take the view that a tenant of a residential building who being
allotted a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements becomes
liable for eviction from the residential building on an application made by
his landlord under section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the 1987 Act, cannot resist the
grant of such application on the ground that he lost the allotted residence B
by surrender made either before or after the filing of such application. As
the view on which the High Court has made the order dismissing the
revision petition filed before it by the appellant conforms to our view, taken
in the matter, the same does not call for our interference in this appeal.

      In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed, however with no costs.   C
As there was no objection for granting time to the appellant till the end of
the year 1994 for putting the respondent in possession of the residential
building, we grant time accordingly, subject to the appellant filing in this
Court within one month from today an affidavit containing the usual
undertaking.
                                                                                 D
T.N.A.                                                    Appeal dismissed.