Prit Pal Sehgal vs Gobind Kant Ranga

G.R. Majithia, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Karnal dated September 18, 1992 allowing the application of the respondent land lord for treating the original application for eviction filed u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) as the one u/s 13-A (1-A) ibid.

The landlord-respondent (hereinafter the ''landlord'' originally filed an application for eviction of the tenant-petitioner (hereinafter the tenant) u/s 13 of the Act on the ground that he needed the demised premises for personal use and occupation and it was registered as Rent Application No. 25/2 of 1990 dated August 18. 1989. He was in the service of Haryana Government and retired therefrom in August 31, 1989. The Act was amended by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1990 (Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990) and after sub-section (1) of Section 13-A Subsection (1-A) was inserted with effect from April 21, 1990. Subsection (1-A) reads thus :-

"Where an application is made by a landlord who is or was an employee of Government of India or of Government of Haryana or of any State owned Board or Corporation of Haryana within one year prior to or after the date of his retirement or within one year from the date of commencement of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1990, whichever is later, on the ground mentioned in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section."

This provision enables a landlord who had filed an application for eviction on the ground of personal necessity to move for amendment of the original petition for seeking eviction u/s 13-A (1 A) of the Act provided he moves the application within one year prior to or after the date of his retirement or within one year from the date of commencement of Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990, whichever is later. The Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1990 received the assent of the Governor of Haryana April 21, i990 and was published vide Notification No Leg. 10/90, dated April 30, 1990 and came into operation which effect from that date. The landlord filed an application dated October 31, 1991 as purporting to be in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (1-A) as inserted in Section 13-A by Haryana Act No 10 of 1990 The amended provision enabled the landlord to move an application u/s 13-A (1-A) within one year of his retirement from Government service or within one year from date of commencement of Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990, whichever was later The landlord retired from Government service on August 31, 1989 He could move the application either on or before August 31, 5 990 or on or before April 21, 1991, i. e. within one year of the commencement of Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990 whichever was later. He filed the application on October 31, 1991 and this application bears the initials of the Rent Controller, Karnal In this application, he stated that he had earlier moved an application u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act, which was still pending.

A perusal of the interim order dated October 31, 1991 passed by the Rent Controller reveals that the Rent Controller had taken cognizance of the application dated October 31, 1991, on the same day and the interim order reads thus :-

"An application u/s 13-A(1) (a) Haryana Urban Rent and Control Eviction Act filed Copy given. To come up on 15-11-1991 for reply and arguments."

While disposing of this application, the Rent Controller dealt with an application dated July 16, 1990 purporting to be u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act. This fact is apparent from the certified copy of the application appended to the revision petition as Anuexure P-2. The tenant challenged the order of the Rent Controller permitting the landlord to amend his original petition u/s 13 as the one u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act on the ground that the application was not filed within one year of the date of retirement of the landlord.

Notice of motion was issued in the revision petition and record of the case was sent for from the Rent Controller. A perusal of the record indicates that there are two applications u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act one is dated July 16, 1990 and the second is dated October 31. 1991. The application dated July 16, 1990 does indicate as to on which date it was received in the Rent Controller''s office. It also does not indicate as to how it was placed on the record. The application dated October 31, 1991 indicates that it was filed on the same date and it bears the initial of the Rent Controller. The application dated July 16, 1990 does not appear to have been filed in the Court of the Rent Controller on the date it purports to have been filed. If it bad been filed on July 16, 1990, the interim order passed by the Rent Controller would have made a mention of it. Even after July 16, 1990, the eviction application had been taken up by the Rent Controller on number of dates. Surprisingly, no reference had been made to this application. Even evidence of the landlord had been recorded in part on April 6, 1991 and the fact of filing of this application was not brought to the notice of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller in his interim order dated October 31, 1991 makes a mention about an application u/s 13-A(1)(a) of the Act and it obviously relates to the one which was filed on October 31, 1991 as is apparent from the endorsement thereon by the Rent Controller. It appears that the application dated July 16, 1990 purporting to be u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act was inserted subsequently to enable the landlord to claim the benefit of Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990 If the application dated July 16, 1990 is taken out of record of the case, then the application dated October 31, 1991 was obviously filed after one year of the date of retirement of the landlord and one year after the commencement of Haryana Act No. 10 of 1990. Having not filed the application within the prescribed period, the application u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act was not maintainable and the Rent Controller could not treat the original application u/s 13 as the one u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act. The order under challenge proceeds wholly on erroneous premises and the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.

Before parting with this judgment, it has become necessary to order an enquiry as to when the application dated July 16, 1990 purporting to be u/s 13-A (1-A) of the Act came on the records of the rent case. It is at page 23 of the file of the Rent Controller It bears the Court fee stamp of the denomination of Rs. 2/- and carries the name "Gobind Kant retired", whereas the Court fee stamps on other documents filed by the landlord do not contain the word "retired". The index of the case file appears to have been filed in by an official of the Court of Rent Controller at one and the same time. Column No. 3 of the index against the alleged application, entry indicates "application 13-A", while the entries against other applications do not indicate the provision under which the same have been male. Even the entry of the second application dated October 31, 1991 does not carry the provision of the Act. These circumstances indicate the record had been tampered with. I direct the District Judge, Karnal to hold a regular enquiry into the matter and fix the responsibility of the defaulting official/officer. The Rent Controller who is seized of the matter will assist the District Judge. The enquiry report should be submitted on or before January 8, 1993. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to get prepared photostat copy of the entire file of the Rent Controller and send the same to the concerned Court for trial of the original petition u/s 13 of the Act on merits in accordance with law. The original rile be sent to the District Judge, Karnal, under a sealed cover through a special messenger. The Registrar (Judicial) shall append his initial on each page of the original file and make a note of it in the forwarding letter to the District Judge, Karnal.