Dalip Kaur Brar vs M/S. Guru Granth Sahib Sewa Mission ...

3 On 1 June 2005 a lease was executed by the appellant by which a residential property, bearing House No. 2535 in Sector 35-C at Chandigarh, was let out to the respondents. The term of the lease was three years commencing on 1 June 2005, to end on 31 October 2008. The rent agreed was Rupees 25,000 for an initial period of one year which was to be enhanced to Rupees 28,000 commencing from 1 June 2006 for the remainder of the term.

4 On 8 November 2006, the appellant filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that : (i) the respondents failed to pay the rent from 1 November 2005 to 31 May 2006 at the agreed rate of Rupees 25,000 per month and with effect from 1 June 2006 at the rate of Rupees 28,000 per month, and the cheques which were issued were dishonoured; (ii) the premises have been kept locked and were not being used for sufficient reason since December 2005.

5 The respondents contested the ground of default by claiming that they had paid an advance of six months’ rent and hence no arrears were due.

6 The Rent Controller by an order dated 14 November 2007 made a provisional assessment of rent and directed the respondents to deposit an amount of Rupees 19,000 per month with effect from 1 June 2005 together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs quantified at Rupees 500. The order of the Rent Controller fixed the proceedings on 14 December 2007 for payment or tender of the rent as provisionally assessed.

8 Since the respondents failed to comply with the order by which provisional rent was determined together with interest and costs, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 14 December 2007. The respondents filed an appeal against the order. On 7 January 2008 a conditional stay was granted by the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, acting as the appellate authority, by which the order of eviction was stayed subject to the deposit of rent within a period of one month before the Rent Controller and the continued deposit of the monthly rent by the seventh day of every succeeding month. The respondents failed to comply with the conditions subject to which stay was granted. Instead, they filed on 7 February 2008 an application for modifying the order dated 7 January 2008. On 11 February 2008, the respondents filed an application for extension of time. The appellate court by its order dated 18 February 2008 dismissed the applications for modification and for extension of time.

15 In order to address the submission, it would be necessary to note at the outset that following the failure of the respondents to comply with the provisional assessment made by the Rent Controller on 14 November 2007, the order of eviction was passed on 14 December 2007. The respondents filed an appeal against the order of eviction and on 7 January 2008 a conditional stay was granted subject to deposit. The respondents filed an application for modification of the condition of deposit and for extension of time. When both the applications were dismissed by the appellate Court they instituted proceedings before the High Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, the frame of the civil revision incorporated a challenge to the order of eviction as well as to the orders passed by the appellate authority on 7 January 2008 (granting a conditional stay) and on 18 February 2008 (dismissing the application for modification and extension). At that stage, the respondents having already invoked the appellate remedy against the order of eviction, the substantive challenge to the order of eviction could not have been the subject of a parallel proceeding before the High Court in a civil revision. An appeal having been preferred against the order of eviction, it would be natural to postulate that the respondents would have to first exhaust the appellate remedy before seeking to question the final order of eviction in revision before the High Court. Moreover, the appeal was not withdrawn. The scope of the challenge by the respondents before the High Court in revision was in regard to the conditions which were imposed by the appellate authority for staying the operation of the order of eviction. The respondents were aggrieved by the condition of deposit and by the refusal of the appellate authority to modify its order imposing those conditions. The revision traversed that limited area and it would be impermissible to construe the judgment of the High Court dated 31 March 2008 as having brought down the curtains on the order of eviction dated 14 December 2007. The appeal filed against the order of eviction was still pending and there is no reason to assume that the High Court would, despite the recourse that was taken by the tenants to the appellate remedy, interdict the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate authority in exercise of the statutory right of appeal under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act.

Of necessity, “the date of first hearing of the application” would mean the date falling after the date of such order by the Controller.

If one reads the application moved by the petitioners for extension of time, it can be safely inferred that before the Appellate Authority, they coined a new objection against payment of rent for the subsequent period by 7th of every calendar month. The petitioners presumably wanted to suggest that they could be directed to pay the arrears of rent till the filing of the ejectment petition only and not for the subsequent period.

29 For these reasons, we are of the view that the High Court fell into error in allowing the revision application against the judgment and order of the appellate authority and in setting aside the order of eviction. The Civil Revision filed by the respondents was liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly.

30 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 29 April 2015. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority shall accordingly stand restored.

31 The respondents shall pay costs to the appellant quantified at Rupees 50,000.

...........................................CJI [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] ….............................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi;

C.A.No.5129/2017 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).24952/2015 DALIP KAUR BRAR Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. GURU GRANTH SAHIB SEWA MISSION (REGD.) AND ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 11/04/2017 This appeal was called on for judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr.Sudhir Walia, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.

Hon'ble Dr.Justice D.Y.Chandrachud pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and His Lordship.

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment. The order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority shall accordingly stand restored.

The respondents shall pay costs to the appellant quantified at Rupees 50,000.