Ravi Chand Mangla vs Dimpal Solania

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.9598 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19594 of 2008)

RAVI CHAND MANGLA .... Appellant

Versus

DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS. ….Respondents JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. The petition for eviction filed by the Appellant under

Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and

Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal

by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed.

2. The Appellant is the landlord of the premises which Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

was let out on 04.01.1957 on payment of rent of 58.26 SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.09.18 16:37:42 IST Reason:

paisa per month. The Appellant filed a petition for eviction

1 under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and

Eviction) Act, 1973 for ejectment of the tenants on the

following grounds:

(i) “That the respondents have defaulted to pay rent and is now in arrears of rent for 60 months beginning from Kwar Bati 1 Sambat 2040 to Sawan Singh Sudhi 15 Sambat 2015;

(ii) That respondent No.1 has sub-let the property in dispute to the respondents No.2 & 3;

(iii) That respondents have impaired the value and utility of the prosperity in dispute;

(vi) That respondents are nuisance to the neighborhood;

(v) That the respondents have changed the user of the property in dispute;”

3. The Rent Controller framed the following issues for

consideration:

1. “Whether the respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent if so its effect? OPP

2. Whether the respondent No.1 has sub-let the demised premises to the respondents No.2 & 3 without the consent of the petitioner? OPP

3. Whether the respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the building in question? OPP

4. Whether the respondents are nuisance neighborhood if so its effect? OPP

5. Whether the respondents have changed the user of the demised premises without the consent of the petitioners? OPP

6. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

2 7. Relief.”

4. The Rent Controller held issue No.1 in favour of the

Respondents by observing that the arrears of rent for three

years between 01.09.1985 to 31.12.1988 were deposited in

the Court. The Rent Controller observed that sub-letting of

the property in dispute by the Respondents was not proved.

Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW-4, Har Saroop,

who admitted in his cross examination that the first

Respondent was continuing to do business in the name of

M/s Solania Engineering Works. The Rent Controller was of

the opinion that it cannot be said that Respondent No.1 was

in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. Likewise

issues No.3 and 4 pertaining to material alterations to the

property and nuisance created by the Respondents in the

activity of manufacturing of grills was rejected by the Rent

Controller. While deciding issue No.5, the Rent Controller

perused the rent agreement and was convinced that the

Respondents were given the property not only for the

purpose of installing the saw mill but also for carrying out

any other type of business. The contention raised by the

Appellant that the saw mill for which purpose the property

3 was let out was closed by the Respondents 4/5 years prior

to the filing of the eviction petition and the work of

manufacturing of grills was going on which amounts to

change of user, was rejected by the Rent Controller. On the

basis of the aforesaid, the Rent Controller dismissed the

eviction petition. The Appellant did not question the

conclusion of the Rent Controller on issues No.1 and 4 in

the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate

Authority found no fault with the judgment of the Rent

Controller on the other issues. On the issue of change of

user, the Appellate Authority found that the Respondents

had the liberty to run any other business activity apart from

the saw mill as per the rent agreement. The High Court

discussed the issues involved in the case carefully and held

that there was neither sub-letting nor any impairment to

the value and utility of the premises. The allegation of

change of user was rejected by the High Court.

5. It was submitted before this Court that the Appellant is

a reputed doctor who is aged 96 years and the premises in

question is about 2000 sq. feet which is part of a larger plot

of land which the Appellant intends to use for construction

4 of a hospital for charitable purpose. Looking at the

laudable object, we adjourned the matter several times to

enable the parties to settle the matter. In spite of our

persuasion, the Respondents- tenants were not willing to

accept monetary compensation for evicting the premises

and re-locating to another site. The Respondents contend

that they will lose their livelihood if they are evicted from

the premises. Having no other alternative, we kept the

matter for decision on merits.

6. There are two submissions that are made on behalf of

the Appellant. The first point relates to non-payment of

outstanding rent. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of

the Respondents was referred to submit that the arrears of

rent from 01.04.1993 to 31.08.2009 was paid only on

24.09.2009 which would amount to non-payment of rent

which is a ground for eviction. We are afraid that we

cannot agree with the submission made on behalf of the

Appellant. It is clear from the judgment of the Rent

Controller that the arrears of rent were paid for three years

prior to the filing of the eviction petition. It is also clear

from the judgment of the First Appellate Court that the

5 Appellant did not assail the findings of the Rent Controller

on issue No.1 pertaining to default in payment of rent. We

cannot permit the Appellant to make submissions for

payment of default of arrears of rent at this stage.

7. The main point urged on behalf of the Appellant is that

the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being

utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of grills which

amount to change of user. Submissions were made before

us by both sides on the interpretation of terms of the rent

agreement. On a perusal of the agreement, we are

convinced that there is no restriction placed on the

Respondents-tenant to run business only relating to the

saw mill. The tenant was given the liberty to carry on any

other business as well. In the absence of any negative

covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose

other than for which the premises was leased. 1. A

premises taken on rent for ‘sugarcane crushing’ was used

for cloth business in which case the landlord’s contention

that there was change of user was rejected 2. We agree

1 Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan 1988 (2) SCC 474 2 Dashrath Baburao Sangale and Ors. v. Kashimath Bhaskar Data 1994 Supp (1) SCC 504

6 with the judgments of the Courts below which are in

accordance with the law laid down by this Court.

8. In view of the aforesaid findings, we see no reason to

interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal

is dismissed. No costs.

...................................J [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]

..................................................J [ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

7