Karamveer Singh Rajput vs Virendra Singh Tomar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2381 UK

              HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                      AT NAINITAL
                  Civil Revision No. 87 of 2018
Karamveer Singh Rajput                           ...      Revisionist
                                    Vs.
Virendra Singh Tomar                             ...      Respondent


Advocate:    Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, Advocate, for the revisionist
             Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

On 16th April 2015, a Suit, being Suit No. 5 of 2015, Virendra Singh Tomar Vs. Karamveer Singh Rajput, was instituted by the landlord/respondent herein, invoking the provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, praying for vacation of the tenement shop, which has been described therein, in the plaint, the tenancy of which, has been terminated by the landlord/respondent, by issuance of the Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it was issued on 12th March 2013, which has been admittedly served upon the tenant/revisionist herein on 13th March 2013.

2. The proceedings of SCC Suit, as instituted on 16th April 2015, was contested by the revisionist by filing a written statement, and in the written statement thus filed on 17th August 2015, the ground taken therein by the revisionist was to the effect that the so-called need, which has been expressed by the landlord/respondent in his plaint under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for

engaging his son, who was alleged to be working as Junior Engineer, working on contractual basis in the Public Works Department, he submits, that the said need, as expressed by the landlord/respondent in the proceedings under Section 15, since not being bonafide, it will not be treated that the landlord/respondent, had approached the Court with clean hands, by filing a proceeding under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, for the reason being, that there existed no bonafide need, owing to the engagement of the landlord's son as pleaded in para 3 of the written statement.

3. On exchange of the pleadings, learned trial Court has framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the rent of disputed shop is Rs. 2000/- p.m. as alleged by the plaintiff or Rs. 1200/- p.m. as alleged by the defendant?

2. Whether plaintiff has terminated the tenancy of the defendant vide notice dated 12.3.2013? If so, its effect?

3. Whether notice dated 12.3.2013 is illegal, as alleged by the defendant?

4. Relief, if any?"

4. In fact, the prime issue, which would be of consideration was the exercise of powers by the landlord/respondent of terminating a tenancy; by issuance of notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, the notice, which was issued on 12th March 2013, was a simplicitor termination of the tenancy, from the

disputed shop, which has been sought to be construed by the learned counsel for the revisionist, as if since the landlord/respondent, has given an expression in the application or even as well as in the notice, that he has to engage his son, is a misnomer, because according to the revisionist, the son of the landlord/respondent was already engaged with the Public Works Department. Hence, the learned counsel for the revisionist contends, that since the landlord /respondent, has not come up with clean hands, the plaint ought not to have been decreed by the learned Provincial Small Cause Courts.

5. The language of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, under which the proceedings were drawn, it only contemplates that on an issuance of notice of terminating the tenancy. It doesn't, at any stage, either by virtue of U.P. Amendment which was carried and made applicable in the State of Uttarakhand as a consequence of its adoption under Section 87 of the Reorganization Act. The proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 15, as it was applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, now in the State of Uttarakhand too also, it only contemplates an eviction of a lessee from a building after "determination of his lease".

6. The determination herein would be, a determination of tenancy as a consequence of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, where it has

been left with an exclusive prerogative with the landlord/respondent, to terminate the tenancy, after giving a prior notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. A conjoint reading of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as it has been made applicable by virtue of U.P Amendment, now applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, a simpliciter termination of a tenancy is contemplated by the Amending Act No. 17 of 1991, which could be done simpliciter by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was admittedly issued in the instant case on 12th March 2013. In that eventuality, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist, that there was no bonafide need, which constituted as to be one of the elements in issuance of notice of termination of tenancy on 12th March 2013, this Court is of the opinion that the aspect of bonafide requirement for a need of family members, is not an aspect, which would be covered by Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, to be read with U.P Amendment Act, as made applicable under sub Section (2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

8. In that eventuality, when the law itself contemplates, a simpliciter determination of a tenancy or a lease by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act

and particularly when in either of the provisions, i.e. either under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, to be read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the bonafide need or the need of the family members doesn't constitutes, as to be as an ingredient, which is required to be judicially scrutinized by the Court, where the tenancy is terminated by issuance of notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is well within the purview of the proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as made applicable in the State of Uttarakhand under Section 87 of the Reorganization Act.

9. Any abstract pleading regarding the need of the son or regarding its aspect being dealt with while deciding an ancillary issue No. 4, that is the relief, if any, will have no bearing so far as the competence of the landlord/respondent is concerned, to terminate the tenancy by invoking Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is well within the ambit of law provided under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

10. The revisionist's contention, that there are other tenement shop also, which is occupied by the other tenants and an exclusive eviction since has been sought in relation to the disputed tenement, which has been occupied by the revisionist, as a tenant, hence the action of the landlord/respondent is arbitrary, is not acceptable by this

Court for the reason being, that if the landlord/respondent, has got different tenements, it is his exclusive choice, to get any particular tenement released or vacated, according to his requirement or perception of need.

11. The stipulations of choice of eviction from a tenement is not an aspect which would stand covered under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, merely because other tenants have been left out, against whom the proceedings under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, has not been drawn, the revisionist cannot contend that the action of the landlord/respondent is arbitrary, because he has been exclusively choosen out by the landlord/respondent to vacate the premises by issuance of simpliciter notice of termination of tenancy in the absence of there being any lease executed in his favour to the contrary.

12. In that eventuality, since the simpliciter termination of tenancy by issuance of notice of determination of tenancy, is an aspect, which stands covered by issuance of a prior notice contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the impugned judgement of affirming the notice of termination of tenancy and directing the eviction of the revisionist from the tenement in question, doesn't suffer from alleged legal vices of the landlord/respondent,

by not approaching the Court with clean hands, pertaining to the engagement of his son or that of pertaining to seek an exclusive eviction of the revisionist from the tenement shop, particularly, when these two ambits or parameters are never a subject matter, which fall within the domain of consideration under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as it is exclusively an ambit which stands covered under the Act No. 13 of 1972, which is not a proceeding, which has been drawn herein or even a subject matter.

13. The learned counsel for the revisionist has made a reference to a judgement reported in 1998 (9) SCC 585, Maqboolunnisa Vs. Mohd. Saleha Quaraishi, in which he attempts was made to draw a conclusion that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that when the landlord has not approached the Court with clean hands, pertaining to his bonafide need, the issue requires an interference, particularly, the backdrops, under which the said judgment has been rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, could be culled-out from the factual narration, which has been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1, which was an eviction sought exclusively based upon the bonafide need, as expressed therein. Para 1 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-

"1. The appellant is the landlady who filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit shop to enable her sons to run embroidery business therein. It was the case of the appellant that the eldest son of the appellant was

running his business of embroidery in a rented premises measuring 4' x 4' and that her other son was also unemployed. It was asserted that the suit shop measuring 10' x 15' was bona fide and genuinely required to enable her eldest son to shift the embroidery business because he was under threat of eviction from the rented premises where he was carrying on the embroidery business. The trial court after recording evidence of the parties allowed the application and directed eviction of the respondent. The High Court in revision reversed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the eviction petition."

14. It was altogether under a different context and law, under which the proceedings were decided by determining the aspect of bonafide requirement of the landlord, which was not an ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Hence, the allegation pertaining to findings recorded on issue No. 4, to extract that the landlord/respondent has not approached the Court, with clean hands, is not a subject, which will have any bearing when the tenancy has been terminated by the landlord, by issuance of notice of determination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the revision lacks merit, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 01.08.2022 Mahinder/