Ram Pal Vs. Urmila Sethi
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7122 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2001)
Petitioner: Ram Pal
Respondent: Urmila Sethi
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7122 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3770 of 2001)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 10, 2001
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Sections 25B(8), 14 (1)(e) – Revision petition against the order of eviction – Summary dismissal without speaking orders. Held, to be improper. Prakash Chand v. Rattan Chand referred and followed. (Paras 7, 8)
Cases Reffered:
1. Prakash Chand v. Ratan Chand Saravgi (2000 (10) SCC 576)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 1st November, 2000 summarily dismissing the revision petition filed by him, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the said order. The relevant portion of the order reads:
“The learned additional rent controller found that the respondent had two married sons and their families. She had also a married daughter who occasionally visits her and the accommodation available with her is insufficient for the respondent and her entire family. Moreover, the learned additional rent controller was of the view that the respondent who is now about 80 years of age, requires to live on the ground floor of the suit premises because of her age.
In view of the findings of the learned additional rent controller, which are not unreasonable. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Dismissed.”
4. The landlady who is the respondent herein, filed the application under section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, seeking immediate recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant on the ground of her personal requirement. It was the case of the respondent that she is in occupation of the first floor of the house along with her two married sons that her married daughter also comes to stay with her occasionally and that due to her old age (80 years) she has to stay at the ground floor for which purpose she needs to occupy the portion on the ground floor which is in occupation of the appellant.
5. The appellant refuting the claim of personal requirement pleaded by the respondent, alleged inter alia, that portions of the building, at the ground floor and in the first floor are lying vacant which can be conveniently occupied by the respondent, that a suitable alternate accommodation is available in the building for occupation of the respondent, the prayer for eviction on the ground of personal requirement should not be accepted.
6. The rent controller on consideration of the case did not accept the case of the appellant and passed the order of eviction against him. Therefore, the appellant filed the revision petition challenging the said order which was disposed of by the High Court, by the order which is under challenge in this appeal.
7. The question that falls for consideration is whether the dismissal of the revision petition by a cryptic, non-speaking order passed in the case can be sustained? This Court in the case of Prakash Chand v. Ratan Chand Saravgi reported in (2000 (10) SCC 576) considering this question made the following observations:
“Thus, it is seen that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which may be exercised either suo motu or on an application filed by any person aggrieved, entitles the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the rent controlling authority, to call for and examine the record and make an appropriate order. The impugned order of the High Court (supra) does not disclose any reasons whatsoever, which weighed with it to dismiss the revision petition by a non-speaking order. The absence of reasons has deprived this Court to appreciate the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the revision petition. Giving of reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its conclusions is much too obvious. Providing of reasons not only lends clarity to the order but also minimises the chances of any arbitrariness and enables the higher forum to test the correctness of the reasons. We are not happy with the manner in which the revision petition was disposed of, since certain arguable points had been raised in the revision petition and particularly, because that was the only remedy available to the tenant under the statute, an appeal being not permissible. The impugned order of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the revision petition to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied)
8. Testing the impugned order on the touchstone of the principles enunciated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the revision petition filed by the appellant has not been considered properly. It follows that the order dismissing the revision petition is unsustainable and has to be vacated and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 1.11.2000 in civil revision petition (rent) no. 1092/2000 is set aside and the revision petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Delhi High Court on 1st November, 2000 summarily dismissing the revision petition filed by him, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the said order. The relevant portion of the order reads:
“The learned additional rent controller found that the respondent had two married sons and their families. She had also a married daughter who occasionally visits her and the accommodation available with her is insufficient for the respondent and her entire family. Moreover, the learned additional rent controller was of the view that the respondent who is now about 80 years of age, requires to live on the ground floor of the suit premises because of her age.
In view of the findings of the learned additional rent controller, which are not unreasonable. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Dismissed.”
4. The landlady who is the respondent herein, filed the application under section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, seeking immediate recovery of possession of the premises from the tenant on the ground of her personal requirement. It was the case of the respondent that she is in occupation of the first floor of the house along with her two married sons that her married daughter also comes to stay with her occasionally and that due to her old age (80 years) she has to stay at the ground floor for which purpose she needs to occupy the portion on the ground floor which is in occupation of the appellant.
5. The appellant refuting the claim of personal requirement pleaded by the respondent, alleged inter alia, that portions of the building, at the ground floor and in the first floor are lying vacant which can be conveniently occupied by the respondent, that a suitable alternate accommodation is available in the building for occupation of the respondent, the prayer for eviction on the ground of personal requirement should not be accepted.
6. The rent controller on consideration of the case did not accept the case of the appellant and passed the order of eviction against him. Therefore, the appellant filed the revision petition challenging the said order which was disposed of by the High Court, by the order which is under challenge in this appeal.
7. The question that falls for consideration is whether the dismissal of the revision petition by a cryptic, non-speaking order passed in the case can be sustained? This Court in the case of Prakash Chand v. Ratan Chand Saravgi reported in (2000 (10) SCC 576) considering this question made the following observations:
“Thus, it is seen that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, which may be exercised either suo motu or on an application filed by any person aggrieved, entitles the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, propriety or correctness of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the rent controlling authority, to call for and examine the record and make an appropriate order. The impugned order of the High Court (supra) does not disclose any reasons whatsoever, which weighed with it to dismiss the revision petition by a non-speaking order. The absence of reasons has deprived this Court to appreciate the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the revision petition. Giving of reasons, howsoever brief, in support of its conclusions is much too obvious. Providing of reasons not only lends clarity to the order but also minimises the chances of any arbitrariness and enables the higher forum to test the correctness of the reasons. We are not happy with the manner in which the revision petition was disposed of, since certain arguable points had been raised in the revision petition and particularly, because that was the only remedy available to the tenant under the statute, an appeal being not permissible. The impugned order of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the revision petition to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied)
8. Testing the impugned order on the touchstone of the principles enunciated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the revision petition filed by the appellant has not been considered properly. It follows that the order dismissing the revision petition is unsustainable and has to be vacated and the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 1.11.2000 in civil revision petition (rent) no. 1092/2000 is set aside and the revision petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. No costs.
