IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Revision Nos. 1of 2008 Date of decision June 20, 2008 __________________________________________________________ 1. Civil Revision No. 1 of 2008 Shri Amrit Pal Singh Nakari ….Petitioner Versus Union of India and another ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Civil Revision No. 1 of 2008 For the Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. _______________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This revision petition has been preferred by landlord/petitioner under Section 24 (5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the order passed by learned Appellate Authority, Solan affirming the order of learned Rent Controller and dismissing the petition for eviction preferred by landlord/petitioner on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner-appellant herein filed the petition for eviction of the respondents from Rose Dene Estate, Survey No. 48, Kasauli Cantt. Lower Mall on the allegations that the respondent had committed breach of the conditions of lease and had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 12 months without reasonable cause; had carried out material alterations, additions etc. and thereby diminishing the utility of the building. Learned Rent Controller, tried issue No.5 as a preliminary issue without going into the other aspects of the matter. Issue No.5 as settled is as under: Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the petition? OPR Taking into consideration the sale deed Ex.P1, the learned Court held that the landlord had no locus standi to maintain the petition as resumption proceedings etc. are pending between Smt. Sharda Rani and the Central Government and the petitioner has brought this property from her. The matter was remitted by learned Appellate Authority to Rent Controller for decision on all issues and not merely on issue No.5 on the basis of which the petition had been disposed of. The important issues for determination which would determine the foundation for eviction order were as to whether there is breach of the conditions of lease; whether the respondents have ceased to occupy the demised premises for a continuous period of 12 months etc. without reasonable cause; whether the respondents have committed such acts of material alterations etc. which have materially impaired the value and utility of the building; whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to Cantonment areas especially the Government buildings. On the first issue, the Court held against the landlord, on the second issue the decision was in favour of landlord that is to say that the respondent had ceased to occupy the premises without reasonable cause. The third issue was decided against the landlord holding that there was no evidence on record to determine as to whether the acts complained of diminished the utility of the building or not. On the fourth issue the Court held that during the course of arguments, this issue was not pressed by the District Attorney and the provisions of Act were held to be applicable to cantonment areas. An appeal was preferred to the Court of the learned Appellate Authority, who vide its judgment 24.9.2007 held that the findings of learned Rent Controller with regard to applicability of the provisions of Rent Act are based on a concession made by the counsel and not 3 binding on the respondents. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and pending application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also dismissed. Both the Courts below have fallen in error in not considering the fact that the Rent Controller Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title which is the exclusive domain of a Civil Court. In Satya Devi Versus M/s Ram Gopal Angania Ram and others ILR 1986 H.P. 293. This Court held that:- 6. “It is well settled law that it is within the domain of the Rent Controller to find out if relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties arrayed before him and further that mere denial of such relationship would not oust his jurisdiction. At the same time, he is not the proper forum for determining the question of title which has to be decided by a civil court. In other words, if Rent Controller is of the view that he cannot determine the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties without deciding the question of title he can refer the parties to the civil court. In this connection, reference may be had to the law laid down in Om Parkash Gupta Vs. Dr. Rattan Singh and another, 1963 PLR 543, M/s Kharati Ram Bansi Lal and others Vs. Smt. Radha Rani and another, 1968 PLR 978 and Dev Raj and another Vs. Sodhan Devi and others, 1978 RCR 146.” (Page 295) Both the Court below have committed a grave error in not only mis-interpreting the provisions of law but also determining the title of the landlord. The question regarding the fact as to whether Ext.P1 conveyed a valid title to the landlord was within the domain of a Civil Court and could not be determined by Rent Controller in a summary manner. Whether resumption proceedings were within the jurisdiction of respondent, whether they were maintainable or not and whether such proceedings per se negated the title of the petitioner are again question to be determined on evidence by a Civil Court. The 4 Courts below could not sit as Civil Courts to adjudicate the title of the petitioner. The sale deed Ext.P1 is a registered instrument, the interpretation of Regulations and orders relating to the grant of sites or land in cantonment etc. and perfection of title are intricate questions which require a trial on evidence and not adjudication in a summary manner. If there was any doubt regarding the validity of the sale which is a registered instrument, or the fact as to whether a valid title exists or not, the question was solely within the domain of Civil Court (s). Deciding on the questions of title in a cursory manner without referring the parties to a Civil Court is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Rent Control Tribunal. On the issue of applicability of the provision of the Act, learned Appellate Authority is not correct in holding that it does not govern buildings in the cantonment areas or to buildings occupied by the Government. The relationship of lessor and lessee having been admitted, the respondent could not deny the title of his landlord as the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would apply. The notification dated 13th May, 1974 relied upon by the respondents reads as under:- HIMACHAL PRADESH Notification No. SRO 181 dated 13th May, 1974 Published in the Gazette of India Dated 25th May, 1974 S.R.O 181 Dated 13th May, 1974 - In exercise of the powers c onferred by Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (46 of 1957) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence No. S.R.O. 109 dated the 5th February 1970, the Central Government hereby extends to the cantonments in the state of Himachal Pradesh of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (Act No. 23 of 1971) as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh with the following modifications, namely:- In the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (Act No. 23 of 1971): 1. In Section 1, of the sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be substituted namely:- “(2) It extends to the cantonments in the State of Himachal Pradesh.” 2. In Section 2, for clause (j), the following clause shall be substituted namely:- 5 (j ) “Urban Area” means any area administered by a Cantonment Board in the State of Himachal Pradesh.” 3. In Section 3, (a) in sub-section (1) for the words “State Government” the words “Central Government” shall be substituted : (b) after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- “(3) the provisions of this Act shall not apply to : (a) any premises within the cantonment belonging to the Government. (b) Any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of premises within the cantonment taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government; or (c) Any house within the cantonment which is, or may be, appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House-Accommodation) Act, 1923 (6 of 1923) (d) The buildings belonging to and, lands vested in the Cantonment Boards. (SRO 335 dated 10-11-1995) The provisions of the Act have been extended to all buildings in cantonment areas. The submission that it does not cover the buildings which have been leased to the government cannot be accepted. A similar question came for consideration before Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India and another Vs. Major Bakshi Chand Katoch and another 1976 RCJ 332 where the notification for determination of the Court was absolutely in pari-materia to the notification on which reliance is placed on in these proceedings. The Court held that “The plain reading of the language used in proviso (b) to Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act shows that it is the tenancy in respect of the premises within a Cantonment created by a grant from the Government which is exempt from the purview of the Punjab Rent Act. As noticed earlier, by the old grant the land was given to one Mewa Lal, the original lessee, and no tenancy or other like relationship was created by the grant in respect of the demised premises. Hence proviso (b) to Section 3 of the Cantonment (Extension of Rent 6 Control Laws) Act is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.”(Page 335) In these circumstances, the findings of learned Appellate Authority cannot be accepted. This revision is accordingly allowed and a direction is issued that the parties shall appear before learned Rent Controller on 14th August, 2008 who shall thereafter proceed to determine the matter in accordance with law and in view of what has been stated hereinabove. June 20,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge