R.N. Hasija vs Chuni Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.

2 Eviction was ordered by this Court against the tenant Petitioner Sh. R. N Hasija He approached the Supreme Court against the said order of ejectment where the following order was passed:-

Special leave granted.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Appellant was not justified in not paying rent to the Respondent for such a long period of time Since, however, the Respondent had asked for possession of the premises on the only ground that the Appellant had committed default in the payment of rent, we consider that in the circumstances of the case, the decree for eviction may not be allowed to be executed against the Appellant on certain conditions.

We direct that with effect from April 1, 1983 the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent compensation for use end occupation of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. For the period ending 31st March 1983, the compensation shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. If the Appellant commits default in payment of future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises for any three months, the Respondent will be entitled to execute the present decree for eviction forthwith.

The future compensation shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month before the 10th of each succeeding month The compensation due for the months of February and March, 1983 shall be paid before the 10th of April, 1983 The amount of Rs. 22,435/-which has been deposited by the Appellant in this Court shall be paid over to the Respondent landlord towards arrears of rent and interest.

The appeal will stand disposed of in terms of this order. There will be no order as to costs " According to Chuni Lal decree holder, the Petitioner judgment debtor R.N. Hasija did not pay the amount of compensation for use and occupation as directed by the Supreme Court in the said order It was alleged that the amount was being paid as rent and not by way of compensation for use and occupation at directed and therefore, the landlord (decree holder) did not accept the tame In any case, the Petitioner R N Hasija failed to make payment within the time allowed by the Supreme Court particularly for the months of August, October, 1983 and for November, 1983 to April, 1984 and thus, he filed the execution petition of 10th February, 1984. The judgment debtor filed his objection to the execution application and on the pleadings of the parties, the executing court framed the following issues:-

Whether the payments were made in accordance with order dated 25.3.1983 by the J D ? O P Objector

Whether the objections are not maintainable ? DH.

Relief

The learned executing Court found that the payments said to have been made were not on account of use and occupation charges but were being made on account of rent, which meant that the judgment debtor tried to create a fresh tenancy in his favour by making the payments as rent which was rightly not accepted by the decree-holder. Apart from that, the executing Court further found in para 7 that as per own showing of judgment-debtor, payment for August, 1983, was sought to be made on 29th October, 1983. Similarly, for October, 1983, the payment was sought to be made on 6th January, 1984 through money orders. Similarly, the payment for November, 1983 to April, 1984, has not been made by 10th of the subsequent month. In view of these findings, objections were dismissed and warrants of possession was issued. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgment-debtor has filed this petition here.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the amount was being paid as per order of Supreme Court and, therefore, even if the word ''rent was written in the coupon of the money orders, it was of no consequence. Moreover, while the word ''rent'' it was also written "compensation". Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the view taken by the executing Court in this behalf was wrong.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this petition. Even if it be assumed that the amount was being paid as compensation, as directed by the Supreme Court, and as rent, though in the money order coupon the word "rent" was mentioned, the judgment-debtor has failed to make the payment by the 10th of each succeeding month as per order of the Supreme Court. The judgment debtor has committed default in the payment of the said amount for more than three months. On that account, the decree holder has become entitled to execute the decree of eviction. The executing Court has given a firm finding that as per own showing of the judgment-debtor payment for August, 1983 was sought to be made on 29th October, 1983. Similarly for October, 1983, the payment was sought to be made on 6th January, 1984, through money orders. Similarly, the payment for November, 1983 to April, 1984 has not been made by the 10th of the subsequent month The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was not able to challenge the said finding of the executing Court and nothing was shown from the evidence that the said amount was paid within the time allowed by the Supreme Court That being so, the decree-holder was entitled to execute the eviction order passed in his favour earlier as per direction of the Supreme Court Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs The parties are directed to appear in the executing Court on 18th November, 1985. The records of the case be sent back forthwith Dispossession is stayed till 18.11.1985