Secretary (Education) And Others ... vs Paramjeet Singh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1803 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
             Civil Revision No. 57 of 2018

Secretary (Education) and others                                  .....revisionists.
                           Versus
Paramjeet Singh and others                                        .... Respondents
Present :
Mr. I.P. Kohli, Standing Counsel, for the State of Uttarakhand/revisionists.
Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate, for the respondents.


                                 JUDGEMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

A proceeding by way of SCC Suit No. 70 of 2011, Paramjit Singh and others Vs. Secretary (Education) Government of Uttarakhand and others, was initiated by the plaintiffs/respondents, herein, seeking an eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from the revisionists over the premises, which was being occupied by them in the capacity of being a tenant.

2. As per the description of the property, which was given therein in the Suit, in question, which constituted as to be as under :-

"elwjh] ftyk nsgjknwu esa fLFkr jkWDlh fcfYMx] dejk ua0 12 o 13] ;wfuV ua0 332] cSjd ua0 331] lwV ua0 12 o 13 ds lkeus rFkk dejk ua0 1 ls 7 foDVj Vkmu ij VSjslA"

3. As per the plaint averments, it was contended by the plaintiffs/respondents, herein, that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972, was not applicable in view of the provisions contained under Sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, but since, there have been a consistent default

committed by the revisionist in the remittance of the rent payable by the defendants/ revisionists, herein, at the rate of Rs. 7,917/- per month and which fell due to be paid w.e.f. 1st January, 2009 till 31st August, 2010, the tendency of the revisionist/ defendant was terminated by issuance of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on 31st December, 2008, on the ground, that apart from the rent for the aforesaid period from 1st January, 2009 till 31st August, 2010, no taxes and other dues, which were to be levied on the tenement, in question, was remitted, and hence, the tenancy was terminated after giving sixty days notice to the defendants /revisionists.

4. The Suit was contested, and ultimately, the same has been decreed in favour of the landlords/respondents by the impugned judgement dated 18.11.2017, which has been put to challenge by the revisionists as rendered in SCC Suit No. 70 of 2011, as decided by the Judge Small Causes on 18th November, 2017, whereby, the Suit was decreed with the following direction :-

"The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed against the defendants with costs and the defendants are ordered to handover the vacant, actual, physical possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiffs within a period of two months from today. As the said premises is a school run by the Government, the defendants are directed to pay the mesne profits for unauthorised use and occupation @ Rs.100/- per day over and above the fixed rate of rent from 29.11.2010 till the date of actual handing over of possession. The plaintiffs are also entitled Rs.2500/- as cost of the notice dated 22.09.2010.

Money deposited by the defendants, if any, as rent/mense profits during this proceeding may be adjusted towards the payment of above charges and plaintiffs will be entitled to receive the same and may recover the remaining amount due as above."

5. Being aggrieved against the said judgement passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, the present Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, was preferred on 25th May, 2018, and much after its admission on 17th August, 2018, it remained pending consideration after the grant of intern order, which was subject to the condition of depositing the entire decreetal amount before the Court below.

6. The matter proceeded further. The pleadings were exchanged and during the course of the proceedings of the Revision, an expression was given by the learned counsel for the revisionists, that the revisionists are willing to vacate the premises, if some reasonable time period is provided to them to vacate the same.

7. This Court by an order dated 15th June, 2022, granted time to the revisionists' Counsel to complete his instructions with regard to the time period, which they want, in order to enable them to vacate the premises. The relevant part of the order dated 15th June 2022 is extracted hereunder:-

"After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in order to meet out the ends of justice, if the revisionist is granted an opportunity to complete the instructions with regard to the time period, which they want to vacate the

premises, he may complete his instructions and make his submissions next week."

8. The matter was taken up today. The learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted, that based on the instructions, which he has received from the revisionists, they have sought three years' time to vacate the premises, which is being vehemently opposed by the respondents' Counsel, on the ground, that since the default was committed in remittance of the rent ever since 2008, coupled with the fact that since the notice of terminating the tenancy was issued on 14th March, 2008, and ever since then, sufficient long period has elapsed till the matter stood finally adjudicated by the Judge Small Causes Court on 18th November, 2017, coupled with the fact that it remained pending before this Court after the grant of interim order in 2018, the period sought for vacating the premises is too long a period, as the landlord would be deprived of its fruitful utilisation of the property, otherwise the title of which stands vested with the respondents.

9. In order to balance equities and also considering the age of tenancy, which the revisionists had over the premises in question, this Court also cannot be oblivious of the fact, that the revisionists is a State Agency and operate all the State administration relating to their Department from where they are running their Office, it would be apt that 1-1/2 years time is provided to the revisionists to vacate the premises, and that would meet the ends of justice in order to enable the revisionists to make a suitable arrangement for

shifting of their Office from the tenement, in question, which has been directed to be vacated in terms of the decree rendered by the Judge Small Causes Court on 18th February, 2017.

10. In view of the aforesaid consensus and the instructions, which had been received by the learned Standing Counsel, vide the communication made by the District Education Officer, Primary Education, Dehradun, vide his Communication No. Pra.0Ra.0Be.0-01/Vidhi/2654- 57/2022-23 dated 17th June, 2022, the revisionist is granted 1-1/2 years time to vacate the premises subject to the payment of the admissible rent of the tenement, in question, for this extended period of occupancy in pursuance to today's order. The revisionist would be permitted to occupy, the tenement, in question, for a period of 1-1/2 years from today subject to the following conditions:-

(i) That the revisionist would submit an undertaking by way of an affidavit, before the Judge Small Causes Court, within three weeks from date of receipt of this judgment that they would be vacating the premises and handing over the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondents/ landlord immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period of 1-1/2 years to be determined from today.

(ii). During this extended period of tenancy, the revisionist would ensure and would continue to remit the rent, which he was paying at the time, when the Suit itself was decreed by the learned Court and would

ensure to pay the same by 10th of each month, along with all taxes payable to the local bodies.

(iii) It is further undertaken by the revisionist that during this intervening period of occupancy of 1-1/2 years, as a consequence of today's order, the revisionist would not change or alter the nature of the tenement, in question, in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) During this period of occupancy of the tenement, in question, as granted by this Court in view of the consensus, which has been extended by the revisionist, the revisionist would not create any sub tenancy or hand over possession to anyone else except for the respondents/landlord.

(v). In an event to failure to comply with any of the conditions as directed above, it will be open for the respondents/landlord to execute degree, as rendered by the Judge Small Causes Court in accordance with the law.

11. Subject to the aforesaid consensus arrived at between the parties and due to providing of time to vacate the premises, the Revision would stand dismissed subject to the aforesaid terms and conditions.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 23.06.2022 Shiv