evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
DHIRENDER SINGH ETC.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 9, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]

Service Law-Promotion-Appellant promoted on ad hoc basis against sports quota-Promotion granted by Supe1imendent of Police-Approval of DIG not obtained-Revmion-Held valid.

Risha/ Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., IT (1994) 2 SCC 157, held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 16846 of 1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.96 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 15985 of 1995.

B.S. Malik, S.S. Tiwari, Mahabir Singh for the Appellants.

Ajay Siwach, for Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the F Superintendent of Police had promoted that appellant in the sports quota in view of the outstanding performance in sports, namely, wrestling, on January 16, 1990 on ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy. It is also stated that it was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment that the appellant could be reverted at any time without any notice and that he would have no right to seniority in the post. Learned counsel for the G appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Risha/ Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., JT 1994 (2) SCC 157. Therein promotion was given by the D.I.G. to the appellant due to his outstanding merit in sports relying upon rule 13.8(2) of Punjab Police Rule 4734. This Court had held that since the D.I.G. was competent authority to make appointment by promo- H 693

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A lion and having considered the appellant therein as an outstanding sports person had promoted him; it was done in terms of Rule 13.8(2) of the Rules giving power to grant any temporary promotion; the promotion, therefore, though termed to be a temporary promotion, was in effect a regular promotion. Under those circumstances, it was held that his reversion as B Constable was bad in law. Admittedly, in this case, the Superintendent of

Police has promoted him and no approval of DIG was obtained. Under those circumstances, the ratio therein has no application to the facts. We do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the High Court. c The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. If the appellant is otherwise eligible, this order of dismissal does not stand in his way for consideration of his case according to rules.

C.A. 16847/96 @ SLP (CJ 19421/96:

D Leave granted. Following the above order, this appeal is also dismissed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals dismissed.
M. BHASKAR v.

J. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, REP. BY HIS POWER OF

ATTORNEY HOLDER A. NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU '

SEPTEMBER 10, 1996

~ B

(K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

A.P. Buildi11gs (Lease, Rent a11d Eviction) Co11trol Act, 1960 :

c Sectio11s 8, 10(2)( 1) a11d 11-Wilfu, I default i11 payment of re11t-Evictio11 ordered by Courts below-Procedure prescribed for payment of rent whe11 landlord evades receiving rent-Omission to avail of the procedure by the te11a11t does 11ot dise11title tlze la11dlord to seek eviction for wilfttl default.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12380 of

D 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.96 of the Andhra Pradesh High Curt in C.R.P. No. 4290of1995. ,...

A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellant.

E L.N. Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy, G. Rama Krishan and S.U.K. Sagar for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : "-'.

F Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter G arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by -c •

all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.

H The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, 778

M. BHASKAR v. J. VENKATARAMANAIDU 779

is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power A of attorney holder is his brother-in-lawcum-maternal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and, therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent B regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure C under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for willful default.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months' time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving an usual undertaking with four weeks from today. No costs.

G.N.

Appeal dismissed.