COURT CLARIFIES TENANT RIGHTS IN BHAWANI PARSHAD V. CHARAN DASS: THE IMPACT OF CONSENT ORDERS
Category: Property Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
FACTS OF CASE
● Late Bhawani Parshad alias Bhagati Parshad (now represented by his legal representatives) was the landlord and late Charan Dass (now represented by his legal representatives) was a tenant in the premises consisting of a house of two rooms/godown comprised in Khasra No.1383 situate in Mohalla Charpat, Church Road, Chamba Town.
● The said suit on one of the dates fixed i.e. 05.09.1979, the landlord appeared in court and stated that there has been a settlement between the parties and the tenant hasaccepted to deposit a sum of Rs.12,500/- before 15.12.1979 in the court. In the event the amount is so deposited on or before the aforesaid date, the application of the landlord shall be deemed to be dismissed;otherwise, on failing to do so, the landlord’s application would be deemed to be allowed.
● The tenant also appeared before the court on the said date and accepted the settlement. He stated that in case he fails to deposit the aforesaid amount on or before the date fixed, he shall vacate the house/godown, and in the event of himdepositing the same, the application of the landlord shall be deemed to be dismissed in terms of the aforesaid settlement, as per the statement of both the landlord and tenant, the Court of Rent Controller, on the very same day, i.e. 05.09.1979 passed an order allowing the application of the landlord conditionally; that if the tenant fails to deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,500/- in court in the name of the landlord on or before 15.12.1979, the application would be deemed to be allowed, and the tenant would deliver vacant possession of the house immediately, otherwise, if the tenant deposits the amount within the stipulated.
● The tenant, in pursuance of the above consent order dated 05.09.1979, deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- in the Chamba Treasury on 06.09.1979, i.e., on the very next day.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
● Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971
● Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.
ISSUES
● whether the house in dispute is in a dilapidated condition, unfit for habitation and requires demolition and reconstruction?
● whether the landlord requires the said house for his bona fide personal use?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The appellant contented that the the consent order delivered on 05.09.1979 does not state that ownership of the property is not transferred to the tenant as the terms simply stated that the eviction application will e dismissed if the tenant gives the amount. The appellant also contended that rupees 12, 500 cannot be constructed as a transfer of ownership as rupees 12,500 was not sale price rather it is agreed sum upon for the tenant's continued occupation.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
The respondent contended that consent order delivered on 05.09.1979 clearly states that upon deposit of rupees 12 ,500 , the ownership of the property is transferred to the tenant as per the mutual agreement. The respondent also contended that ownership of the property is transferred to the tenant as amount deposited represented value of the property and terms and conditions that are agreed upon the settlement must be executed
ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court analysised that according to the facts and circumstances, crystal clear in our mind that the High Court had patently erred in interpreting the consent order and in reversing the well-considered judgments and orders of the court of first instance and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit of the tenant. High Court had patently erred in interpreting the consent order and in reversing the well-considered judgments and orders of the court of first instance and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit of the tenant. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the High Court dated 20.04.2011 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with costs.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide
WRITTEN BY: PRATIKSHA SWAIN
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
