Suresh Kumar Gupta vs State of Haryana and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Suresh Kumar Gupta, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.

Disputed shop no.8 of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak (defendant no.2) was let out to the plaintiff in September 1993. In Government policy vide letter dated 05.05.1999, it was stipulated that the tenants be not asked to vacate the premises and rather, the rent be increased suitably. Plaintiff''s case is that the rent was accordingly increased pursuant to said policy and a new tenancy came into existence.

However, now the defendants have cancelled the tenancy vide letters dated 27.02.2007 and 05.06.2007, which are illegal and null and void. Tenancy of the plaintiff could not be cancelled or terminated through these letters being contrary to policy dated 05.05.1999 and also because provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short - the Rent Act) are applicable. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that the cancellation letters dated 27.02.2007 and 05.06.2007 are illegal, null and void, not enforceable and not executable. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said letters and from interfering in possession of the plaintiff and from dispossessing him from the disputed shop was also sought.

Defendants pleaded that the disputed shop was given to the plaintiff on lease vide letter dated 29.07.1993. Lease was up to 31.03.1995. Government policy letter dated 05.05.1999 was admitted. It was, however, pleaded that the same was withdrawn vide letter dated 26.04.2001. Allotment policy was revised vide letter dated 09.09.2005. The same was modified vide letters dated 19.01.2007 and 25.01.2007, as per directions of this Court vide judgment dated 26.06.2006 passed in C. W. P. No. 15431 of 2005 titled Lalit Kumar and Another vs. State of Haryana and Another. Plaintiff''s tenancy had been extended till framing of the revised policy. Consequently, on framing of revised policy, tenancy of plaintiff came to an end. He was required to vacate the shop. The impugned letters have therefore rightly been issued by the defendants. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011, dismissed the plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.

Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that during pendency of the suit, ejectment order dated 07.03.2011 ordering ejectment of the plaintiff from the disputed shop has been passed by Collector under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (in short - the Public Premises Act). Appeal preferred by plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide order dated 10.05.2011.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of Government Policy dated 05.05.1999, rent of the disputed shop was increased by the plaintiff, and therefore, a new tenancy came into existence. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, . It was also contended that provisions of the Rent Act are, therefore, applicable to the disputed shop and plaintiff''s possession over the shop cannot be said to be unauthorized. It was also submitted that Government letter dated 26.04.2001, whereby earlier policy letter dated 05.05.1999 was withdrawn, was not conveyed to the plaintiff-appellant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 - Caveators contended that in view of revised policy, impugned letters of termination of plaintiff''s tenancy were rightly issued and thereafter possession of plaintiff became unauthorized and he has been ordered to be evicted from the disputed shop by way of ejectment order under the Public Premises Act.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was tenant in the disputed shop. However, the plaintiff cannot claim perpetual tenancy if there is no basis for the same. Plaintiff''s claim under policy dated 05.05.1999 cannot be accepted because the said policy was withdrawn vide letter dated 26.04.2001. Mere alleged non-communication of letter dated 26.04.2001 to the plaintiff would not make the said letter inoperative. It may be added that plaintiff''s original tenancy was not created on the basis of letter dated 05.05.1999, on which the plaintiff is relying heavily. On the other hand, plaintiff''s tenancy had been created in September 1993. Consequently, subsequent letter dated 05.05.1999, which has been withdrawn vide letter dated 26.04.2001, would not help the plaintiff in any manner.

As regards applicability of the Rent Act, plaintiff has already been ordered to be ejected from the disputed shop under the Public Premises Act. Legality and validity of the said ejectment order is not under challenge in the instant lis. The instant judgment shall not prejudice the right of the plaintiff-appellant to challenge the said ejectment order passed under the Public Premises Act.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Letters dated 27.02.2007 and 05.06.2007 impugned in the suit cannot be said to be illegal or null and void. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.