Forgot password
1991 (10) TMI 313 - SC - Indian Laws
Issues Involved: Interpretation of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 in relation to possession given to competent authority under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972.
Judgment Summary:
The Supreme Court considered the question of law regarding the interpretation of the second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 in a case where possession was given to a competent authority under the Himachal Pradesh Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1972. The Court analyzed whether such possession constituted vacation without sufficient cause under the Rent Control Act.
The Court examined the meaning of "vacate such building without sufficient cause" in the context of the second proviso. It was determined that vacating a building under a requisition order by the competent authority does not amount to vacation without sufficient cause, as the landlord is compelled to vacate under legal constraint.
The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of cause under the Rent Control Act should not be influenced by the validity or invalidity of an order under the Requisition Act. The reasons for vacating a building under different circumstances should be considered independently.
Furthermore, the Court held that the Rent Control authorities cannot assess the merit of an order under the Requisition Act, and therefore, such an order should not be a determining factor in concluding that a building was vacated without sufficient cause.
Additionally, the Court addressed the requirement for the landlord to occupy the building and found that the appellant had a genuine need to occupy the premises, as he had no other building in the urban area and had vacated his previous building for sufficient reasons. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and directed the appellant to approach the Rent Control authorities for appropriate directions. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.