In this post we will discuss about a Civil Revision Petition to set aside Eviction Order wherein the High Court held that the repairs that became imperative for maintaining the integrity of the building ought not to be taken as an actionable wrong by the tenant that could render him liable for eviction.
Civil Revision Petition to set aside Eviction Order.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Khairati Lal
…..Petitioner
Versus
Bansi Dhar Acharya and others I
…..Respondents
Facts
- Rent was being paid by the tenant only to the Acharya
- The tenant through the Trustees of the temple had altered the construction by removal of three pillars and erecting a beam to support the roof without the concurrence.
- The action of the tenant constituted a material alteration to reduce the value and utility of the building and therefore, was liable to be evicted
- The Trustees were claimed that a Trust deed had been executed in the year 1969. Trust deed showed that the property is vested in Trust, Trustees could carry out repairs in respect of the entire Trust property except the temple and the four shops.
- The Acharya filed a petition with the Rent Controller for the eviction of the Tenant.
- The Rent Controller found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Acharya and the tenant had been established but however, the existence of a Trust deed showed that the property vested in Trust and the alterations made by the Trust could not constitute an actionable wrong of the tenant. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- The Acharya then filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority.
- The Appellate Authority held that the trust deed had allowed for alterations or repairs only in respect of property except the temple and the shops, the fact that the repairs had been brought about by the Trust itself was against the terms thereof and any alteration or repair that constituted an actionable ground must be seen only from the landlord’s perspective. Since the landlord namely the Acharya had found the alterations made to constitute a material impairment, it would not avail to a tenant to contend that the alterations and repairs made by the Trust could give him any right of defense against eviction. The appeal by the Acharya was, therefore, allowed. Tenant was ordered to be evicted.
- The civil revision was filed at the instance of the Tenant.
ALSO READ-CIVIL REVISION AGAINST RENT APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
Issues Involved
- The question which the Revision petition created before the court was weather the alterations made by the Tenant through the Trust would constitute an actionable wrong of the tenant.
Judgments
- Shadi Singh v. Rekha
The Supreme Court held that..
“If a landlord fails to make the necessary repairs to a building other than structural alterations, it shall be competent for the Controller to direct on application by the tenant, and after such inquiry as the Controller may think necessary, that such repairs may be made by the tenant, and that the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent which is payable by him.” The scheme of the Act in this behalf adumberates that it is the obligation of the landlord to keep the building in fit and habitable condition. It he fails to make the necessary repairs to the building other than reconstruction or structural alteration, the tenant has been given a right under s.12 to make an application to the Rent Controller, who after making such enquiry as he may think necessary, is empowered and shall be competent to pass an order directing the tenant to effect necessary repairs. The costs expended thereof may be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord. The landlord, equally, is entitled under s.13(3)(a)(iii) to seek eviction of the tenant from any building if the landlord requires it to carry out building work pursuant to the notice issued by the Govt., local authorities or Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On reconstruction or effecting repairs by the landlord, he is enjoined to restitute the evicted tenant into possession of the building. Under sub-s. (4) of s.13 it shall be mandatory for the Rent Controller to make an order in that behalf, despite the landlord himself makes use of the building of lets it out to any other tenant and puts a new tenant in possession of the evicted building.
- Parashuraman (D) by LRs vs. V. Doraiswamy (D) by LR 2005(2) RCR 590.
A Full Bench of this Court had also dealt with the issue in the context of an allottee from the Housing Board could just as well be a landlord if he had created a lease in favour of the third party, to bring home the point that even an allottee, who had taken the property from the Housing Board to which installments were due before the allottee could have become the owner of the property, could still maintain an action for ejectment against a tenant inducted by him.
ALSO READ- TENANT EVICTION PETITION BY LANDLORD IN CHANDIGARH MOHALI
Findings of the Court
- The court found that It was very clear from the rent receipts filed before the Court that the rent was being paid by the tenant only to the Acharya thus making him the Landlord but the issue of ownership was irrelevant and the court had no problem in accepting the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (Acharya) that a landlord- tenant relationship has no bearing to the issue of ownership.
- it had been held that the property including the shop actually belonged to the Trust and Acharya’s suit for declaration was not competent.
- The court observed through the photographs in the report filed by the local commissioner that the pillars of the property were literally supported through drums and loose bricks to prevent the roof from falling down. It was obvious that the construction surely required a repair which was a responsibility of the landlord who not concurring with the repairs effected at the property. Every alteration or modification does not give rise to an action for eviction. The law requires that the alteration or repairs was such as to impair the value and utility of the building.
- The Court stated that the proper course for tenant to secure safety to his own building ought to have been through his own landlord as Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1971 enjoins that a tenanted premise is kept in a state of repair. This is actually a statutory recognition of what even the Transfer of Property Act provides casting an obligation on the landlord to keep the building habitable.
- The Court Applied the repairs were to be carried out by the owner of the premises namely the Trustees of the Raghnath Temple, and if the repairs hadn’t been mad then maybe tottering pillars could have brought down the building with them if removed and the beam kept to support the roof by the Tenant could not be understood as constituting a willful act of the tenant that could impair the value and utility of the building.
- The Court viewed that If the ownership of the Temple and the shops to the Trustees itself was provided under Clause 10 of the Trust Deed then the exclusion of the right to carry out repairs for the four shops and the temple was meaningless. A clause in the trust deed excluding the right of Trustees to carry out repairs leads us to a strange situation when the Acharya is not the owner of the premise but Trustee, who holds ownership as such Trustee in relation to the shop cannot carry out the repairs. It will result in an absurd situation of allowing for a property held in Trust to go in a total state of disrepair.
ALSO READ- HOW TO EVICT TENANT OUT OF RENTED PREMISES
CONCLUSION
The High Court held that the repairs that became imperative for maintaining the integrity of the building ought not to be taken as an actionable wrong by the tenant that could render him liable for eviction.
The Property was defiantly in a need of the major structural repairs and as per the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and, Evection) act 1971, it was the responsibility of the Landlord in this case the acharya to make those repair and maintain the property.
The High Court said that the exclusion of the temple must be understood as the deity itself was the owner of the properties which were to be managed in Trust by the Trustee and thus there was nothing wrong if the repairs that were made by the Tenants through the Trustees if the Landlord could not perform his duty to carry out the repairs.
The High Court restored the order passed by the Rent Controller and hold that the alterations carried out were such as to render solidity and for strengthening the integrity of the building and ought not to be taken as constituting an impairment of value and utility. The order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority is consequently was set aside and the civil revision was allowed.
This post is written by Pushkar Yadav
For case specific advice, please contact Rent Lawyers of Punjab Haryana High Court in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Baltana Mullanpur etc for landlord Tenant Disputes , Rent Advice, Rent Matters in Appeal before Rent Controller Authority, Free Legal Advice related to Property Disputes, Ejectment of Tenant or forceful vacation of the rented premises by landlord.
.More on 99888-17966.
