Raichurmatham
Prabhakar & Anr Vs. Rawatmal Dugar [2004] Insc 242 (12 April 2004)
R.C.
Lahoti & Ashok Bhan. R.C. Lahoti, J.
There
are two cases relating to two premises, both being part of the same building,
owned by the same owners but held on tenancy by two tenants. The two premises
are described as Door Nos.11-45-60 and 11-45-60/A situated at Thavvavari Street of Vijayawada. The tenants in the two premises were holding each at a
monthly rent of Rs.250/- under the appellant-landlords. For convenience sake we
would refer to the parties only as 'landlord' and 'tenant'.
The
landlord initiated proceedings for recovery of possession over the tenancy
premises alleging that the same were required bona fide by the landlord for the
immediate purpose of demolishing and such demolition was to be made for the
purpose of erecting new building on the site of the building sought to be
demolished, a ground contemplated under Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of
Section 12 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
(hereinafter 'the Act', for short). The landlord was successful in both the
proceedings and vide the order dated 21.2.1986, the Rent Controller directed
the two tenants to put the landlord in possession of the tenancy premises
within one month from the date of the order.
The
tenants preferred appeals which were dismissed on 5.2.1987.
The
time appointed for compliance by the tenants was extended by one month. The
tenants delivered possession over their respective shops to the landlord on
5.3.1987. The landlord gave an undertaking to the effect that on completion of
the work of repairs and alteration etc. in the building the same will be
offered to the tenants.
The
work was completed by the landlord within six months. On 3.9.1987, the landlord
sent an offer to each of the two tenants to occupy the rebuilt premises subject
to payment of Rs.2400/- p.m. by each of the two tenants. The area of the two
shops in question before renovation was 27 ft. x 11 ft. = 297 sft. each. It
appears that the building continues to be non-residential as before but it has
undergone structural alterations of far-reaching character. It is clear from
the description of premises contained in the offer in writing made by the
landlord on 03.09.87, relevant parts whereof read as under:__ "You are
aware that in my building D.no.11-45- 60/A in Tavvavari Street, Vijayawada-1,
in front of the Room (which was leased to you previously), a new shop room
measuring about 11 x 12 feet has been constructed with the concrete Pillers,
RRC roofing and iron shutter facing the northern side. The previous room which
is now situated inside of this newly constructed shop room, is completely
altered by removing the wooden door, window, walls, middle piller, arches, and
partition walls, and by putting new iron beams (girders) in the place of
partition walls and by constructing new walls, by removing wooden beams
(girders) in their places, by carrying out new cement planting to all walls,
and raising height of the ground floor to one foot and putting new cuddappha
stone slab flooring. All these rooms including newly constructed front shop
room are being completely altered constructed with new additional constructions
in order to make one big shop measuring about 40 x 11 feet with decent
appearance as suitable for the offices, or wholesale shops. x x x I offer this
newly constructed shop/hall (with iron shutter) measuring about 40 x 11 feet
(including newly constructed front shop room) to you for lease for the rent of
Rs.2400/- Rupees two thousand four hundred only per month, and this rent is
according to the market rate of the rents prevailing in this important business
area." The tenants did not reply. On 15.12.1987, the tenants filed two
execution petitions seeking enforcement of the undertaking given by the
landlord and recovery of possession to the tenants from the landlord. By order
dated 6.1.1989, the executing Court directed the execution petitions to be
dismissed solely on the ground that they were barred by limitation as they were
filed on 15.12.1987 and not within six months from the date of the appellate
orders i.e. 5.2.1987 (as required by Rule 23, quoted hereinafter). The tenants
preferred two revision petitions before the High Court which have been disposed
of by a common order. The revision petitions have been allowed. The landlord
has been directed to restore possession to the tenants. The High Court has left
it open to the landlord to take necessary steps for claiming fair rent from the
tenants by approaching the Rent Controller for the purpose. Feeling aggrieved
the landlord has come up in appeals by special leave.
Two
questions arise for decision:-
(1)
Whether a new tenancy comes into existence, between the parties, on possession
being restored to the tenant over the newly erected building or any part
thereof, which would entitle the landlord to settle the rent and other terms of
lease afresh?
(2)
What is the period of limitation for filing an application by the tenant
seeking enforcement of the order of the Rent Controller made under Section 12
of the Act? Both the abovesaid issues call for construing the provision enacted
in Section 12 of the Act.
The
Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 (Act No.15
of 1960) was enacted to replace former two State enactments namely the Madras
Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXV of 1949) and the
Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (Hyderabad Act XX
of 1954) which were operating in two areas of the State namely the Andhra area
and Telangana areas respectively. It seems that in the predecessor legislation
there was no provision similar to the one contained in Section 12 of the Act of
1960. The Statement of Objects and Reasons states inter alia that new Act was
introducing some important new provisions and one of them being ___ "to
make a provision empowering the Rent Controller to direct the tenant to hand
over possession of a building to the landlord to enable him to reconstruct or
renovate the old building subject to certain safeguards".
Section
12 of the Act with which we are concerned reads as under:-
"12.
Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for
reconstruction:-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything in this Act on an application made by a landlord, the
Controller may, if he is satisfied:
(a)
that the building is reasonable and bona fide required by the landlord for
carrying out repairs, alterations or additions which cannot be carried out
without the building being vacated; or
(b)
that the building consists of not more than two floors and is reasonable and
bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it
and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on
the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the
tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified
date.
(2) No
order for recovery of possession under this Section shall be passed unless the
landlord gives an undertaking that the building on completion of the repairs,
alterations or additions or the new building on its completion will be offered
to the tenant, who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under
sub-section (1), for his occupation before the expiry of such period as may be
specified by the Controller in this behalf.
(3) In
case the tenant, to whom the building or the new building, as the case may be,
is offered under sub-section (2) by the landlord does not want to occupy it the
landlord shall give notice of vacancy in writing to the authorized officer
under sub- section (1) of Section 3.
(4)
Nothing in this Section shall entitle the landlord, who has recovered
possession of the building for repairs, alterations or additions or for
reconstruction to convert a residential building into a non-residential
building or a residential building unless such conversion is permitted by the
Controller at the time of passing an order under sub-section (1)."
In
exercise of the power conferred by Section 30 of the Act, rules have been
framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, called the Andhra Pradesh Buildings
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. The relevant part of Rule 23,
with which we are concerned, is extracted and reproduced hereunder:-
"23.
(1) Every application for the execution of orders passed under this Act shall
be in writing signed and verified by the decree-holder and filed before the
Controller within six months from the date of the order accompanied by a
certified copy of the order concerned together with the necessary process fee:
Provided
that an application may be admitted after the specified period if the applicant
satisfied the Controller that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the
application within such period.
(2) On
receipt of an application for the execution of order as provided by sub-rule
(1), the Controller shall ascertain whether all the requirements have been
complied, and if they have not been complied, the Controller may reject the
application or may allow the defect to be remedied within the time to be fixed
by him.
(3)
& (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) An order of eviction passed under Sections 10, 12,
and 13 shall be executed by evicting the persons against whom the order was
passed or any other persons bound by the said order and by delivering the
vacant possession of the building in regard to which the order was passed
either to the person in whose favour the order was passed or to such person as
he may appoint to take delivery on his behalf.
(6) to
(8) xxx xxx xxx"
The leases of immovable property and the relationship between landlord and
tenant are governed by Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The
rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee are stated in Section 108 of the
T.P. Act which apply subject to the contract or local usage to the contrary.
Under Clause (b) and (c) thereof, not only the lessor is bound on the lessee's
request to put him in possession of the property but there is also an implied
covenant for peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased property by the
tenant. So long as the lessee pays the rent reserved by the lease and performs
the obligations cast on him by the contract of lease, he is entitled to hold
and enjoy the property without interruption by anyone including the lessor. Under
Clause (l) the lessee is bound to pay or tender, at the proper time and place,
the premium or rent to the lessor.
There
has developed what is known as the doctrine of suspension of rent based on
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. If the lessee is
dispossessed by the lessor from the leased property the obligation of the
lessee to pay rent to the lessor is suspended.
S.C.
1745, the Seven-Judges Bench of this Court examined the impact of Rent Control
Legislations on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act in the context
of the issue whether for the purpose of seeking an eviction of tenant under the
provisions of the rent control law, it was still necessary for the landlord to
terminate the tenancy by giving a notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act.
Certain observations made by this Court during the course of its judgment are
relevant for our purpose and may be noticed. The State Rent Acts have, to a
very large extent, encroached upon the field of freedom of contract. The right
of re-entry controlled by Section 111 of the T.P. Act is further restricted and
fettered by the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act. In spite of the
contract of lease having expired or terminated, the tenant ___ lessee continues
in possession under the protective wing of the Rent Restriction Act until the
lessee loses that protection. The lessee is not bound to vacate nor can the lessor-landlord
exercises his right of re-entry unless a ground entitling him to do so within
the meaning of the Rent Act has been made out and established in a court of
law. The landlord-tenant relationship stands snapped and the tenancy comes to
an end only on a decree or order in that regard being passed by a competent
court. Thus, the contractual lease may have come to an end and the
landlord-tenant relationship may have ceased to exist under the contract or the
T.P. Act, yet the same continues to exist for the purpose of Rent Act.
With
this much prefatory statement we proceed to examine the provisions of the A.P.
Act.
The
Heading given to Section 10 of the Act is ___ 'Eviction of tenants'. It confers
a protection on the tenant to occupy the tenancy premises by providing that the
tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise
except in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 or Sections 12 and 13.
Sub-section (2) of Section 10 enumerates the grounds on the availability
whereof the tenant becomes liable to be evicted. The provision opens by
enacting that a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the
Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after hearing
both the parties, is satisfied of the availability of any one or more of the
grounds specified in sub-section (2) being made out, the Controller shall make
an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the
building. The Headings given to Sections 12 and 13 speak of 'Recovery of
possession by landlord for repairs, alterations or additions or for
reconstruction' of buildings.
The
view is now settled that the Headings or Titles pre-fixed to sections or group
of sections can be referred to in construing an Act of the Legislature. But
conflicting opinions have been expressed on the question as to what weight
should be attached to the Headings or Titles. According to one view, the
Headings might be treated as preambles to the provisions following them so as
to be regarded as giving the key to opening the mind of the draftsman of the
clauses arranged thereunder. According to the other view, resort to Heading can
only be taken when the enacting words are ambiguous. They cannot control the
meaning of plain words but they may explain ambiguities. (See: Principles of
Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, Ninth Edition, 2004, pp.152,155).
In our opinion, it is permissible to assign the Heading or Title of a section a
limited role to play in the construction of statutes. They may be taken as very
broad and general indicators of the nature of the subject-matter dealt with thereunder.
The Heading or Title may also be taken as a condensed name assigned to indicate
collectively the characteristics of the subject-matter dealt with by the
enactment underneath; though the name would always be brief having its own
limitations. In case of conflict between the plain language of the provision
and the meaning of the Heading or Title, the Heading or Title would not control
the meaning which is clearly and plainly discernible from the language of the
provision thereunder.
In the
present case, Sections 10 and, 12 and 13 are placed in close proximity and yet
assigned different titles which is suggestive of the legislative intent that
the subject-matter dealt with under the two headings, differently named, is
different. A comparative reading of Section 10 with Sections 12 and 13 shows
that while sub-section (2) of Section 10 contemplates the tenant being directed
to put the landlord in possession of the buildings consequent upon a ground for
eviction of tenant having been made out and the landlord having succeeded in
making out a case for eviction of his tenant. And so, the delivery of
possession by tenant to landlord is in effect eviction of tenant by landlord.
The tenancy itself is determined. Under Sections 12 and 13 the Controller
orders the tenant to deliver possession of the buildings to the landlord for a
specific purpose and according to a calendar of events which binds the landlord
and the tenant both. In other words, under Sections 12 and 13 the tenant is not
evicted; the tenancy does not come to an end; the lease continues to survive;
and yet the tenant ceases to be in actual possession of the building which is
placed in possession of the landlord for a specified purpose. Under Clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of Section 12 the purpose is "for carrying out repairs,
alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the building being
vacated". Under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) the purpose is "the
immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the
purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be
demolished." The provision seeks to achieve a multi-purpose. The tenant is
protected because his tenancy does not come to an end and his right to
re-occupy the building ___ repaired, altered, added or erected ___ continues to
survive.
The
landlord is benefited because but for the tenant having been directed to
deliver possession to him he could not have carried out such repairs, etc. or
rebuilding. The public interest is served as the buildings are kept in good
state and habitable and new building activity continues to be carried on.
Under
Section 12, as we have already stated, the lease does not come to an end, nor
the tenancy is terminated, merely on account of possession of the building
having been delivered to the landlord; nor does it come to an end nor
extinguished because the old building has been demolished and a new building
has been erected. The tenant, when he re-enters into possession, does so under
the original tenancy which stands statutorily protected under the Act and he
has not been evicted nor held liable to be evicted. In spite of the building
having been repaired, altered, added to or re-erected, the tenant shall re-
enter to occupy the premises on the same terms and conditions on which he was
occupying the building on the date on which he delivered possession to the
landlord, pursuant to the order of the Controller.
The
rent for the period between the date of delivery of possession by tenant to
landlord and the date of tenant's re-entry shall remain suspended because
during that period it was not the tenant but the landlord who was in possession
of the building. On the tenant's re- entry into possession of the building, his
obligation to pay the same rent which he was paying on the date of delivery of
possession by him to the landlord, shall stand revived. If the law permits a
revision of rent or fixation of standard rent afresh, the landlord would be at
liberty to invoke that provision and revise the rent consistently with such
provisions. But the revision of rent cannot be insisted on by the landlord as a
condition precedent to re-entry by the tenant.
Therefore,
the landlord in the present case was not justified in offering the premises to
the tenants for re-entry by qualifying the offer for payment of a higher rate
of rent.
Rao __
(1995) 2 Andh. L.T. 100, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh noticed G.O.M. No.636, G.A.D. dated 29.12.1983 which exempted newly
constructed buildings from the operation of the Act, with effect from
26.10.1983, for a period of 10 years from the date on which their construction
is completed. The Notification was issued in exercise of the power conferred by
Section 26 of the Act. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as
the newly constructed building would remain exempted for a period of 10 years
from the operation of the Act, it was not necessary for the landlord to give an
undertaking as contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act and the
right of re-induction of the tenant remained suspended for a period of 10 years
from the date of completion of the construction of building. This judgment was
put in issue in appeal by special leave before this Court. A Division Bench of
this Court by its judgment dated 04.11.1999 (reported as Kondeti 2000 Supreme
Court 70) set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and held that
where a landlord requires a building to be demolished necessarily he has to
reconstruct the building on the same site of the building and on reconstruction
of new building the tenant has to be allowed to re-enter in the said premises.
If an interpretation, as given by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court, was to be accepted then it would encourage any unscrupulous
landlord to get eviction of tenant on the ground of demolition of the building
which would be repugnant to the object of the Act, said this Court. We may
hasten to add that the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed by
this Court suffered from the fallacy of reading Section 12, as providing a
ground to the landlord for evicting the tenant which it is not.
A
perusal of Section 12 of the Act shows the order being passed by the Controller
directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before
a specified date, subject to the Controller being satisfied of the availability
of the ground for making such an order.
An
order for recovery of possession under Section 12 cannot be passed unless the
landlord gives an undertaking for offering the building back to the tenant on
the expiry of such period as may be specified by the Controller in this behalf.
If the tenant does not avail the offer still the landlord cannot occupy the
building. He has to notify the vacancy in writing to the authorized officer
under Section (1) of Section 3. The nature of user after reconstruction must
remain the same as it was before, that is to say, a residential building must
continue to be a residential building and a non-residential building must
continue to be a non-residential building on re-erection unless permitted
otherwise by the Controller. Section 12 empowers the Controller to specify time
or appoint the dates for three purposes:
(i) the
date by which the tenant has to deliver possession of the building to the landlord,
(ii)
the date by which the landlord has to complete the work, and
(iii) the
date by which the landlord shall offer the building to the tenant.
The
controller can also specify the date or time before the expiry of which the
tenant must give response to the offer made by the landlord. 'Such period as
may be specified by the Controller in this behalf' ___ the expression as
employed in sub-section (2) of Section 12 qualifies all the events within the
scope of that provision. Once these dates have been specified there will be no
difficulty of implementation.
Having
reconstructed the premises totally anew, should the rent remain static? We can
understand the premises being just repaired or only essential repairs having
been carried out by the landlord in discharge of his obligation to secure
peaceful enjoyment and possession of the tenancy premises by the tenant for the
purpose for which the tenancy was created. So long as the premises remain the
same, one can understand and assume that the rent appointed for the premises
either by agreement or as fair rent has already taken care of the obligation of
the landlord of maintaining the premises in good and habitable condition. In
such cases, it may not be necessary to revise the rate of rent. However, when
the premises have been added to, improved, altered or rebuilt consequent upon
the satisfaction of the Controller having been arrived at in that regard, it
will be unreasonable and capricious to keep the premises tied down to the old
rate of rent which was being paid for premises which were ____ may be ____
dilapidated or not worthy of human habitation. Such a provision, if contained
in any Legislation, would be liable to be struck down as unconstitutional on
account of being arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. However, so far as the
Act is concerned, care has been taken by Section 5 thereof which provides as
under:- "5. Increase in fair rent in what cases admissible:-
(1)
When the fair rent of a building has been fixed under this Act, no further
increase in such fair rent shall be permissible except in cases where some
addition, improvement or alteration has been carried out at the landlord's
expense and if the building is then in the occupation of a tenant, at his
request:
Provided
that the increase shall be calculated at a rate per annum not exceeding six per
cent of the cost of such addition, improvement or alteration carried out and
the fair rent as increased under this sub-section shall not exceed the fair
rent payable under this Act for a similar building in the same locality with
such addition, improvement or alteration:
Provided
further that, any dispute between landlord and the tenant in regard to any
increase claimed under this sub-section, shall be decided by the
Controller." Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 contemplates delivery of
possession by the tenant to the landlord for repairs, alterations, additions
and demolition and reconstruction. Out of these four situations, Section 5
permits revision of rent in cases of alterations, additions and repairs
amounting to improvements. A reconstruction carried out pursuant to order of
Controller made under Section 12(1) of the Act is included within the meaning
of the expression 'addition, improvement or alteration' which, in our opinion,
seems to have been used in wider sense. In such cases, it will be permissible
to have the rent fixed consistently with the principles laid down in the
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 5. In the cases covered by Section 12,
Section 5 is available for fixation of fair rent by way of revision over the
rate of rent at which it was being paid previously. The opening part of
sub-Section (1) of Section 5 is divisible into two parts, comprehending two
situations, as under :
(i)
Where the fair rent of a building has been fixed under this Act, no further
increase in such fair rent shall be permissible; except in cases
(ii) where
some addition, improvement or alteration has been carried out at the landlord's
expense and if the building is then in occupation of a tenant, at his request.
The
next following two provisos respectively lay down the formula for calculating
the revision in rent and confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Controller to
decide the dispute.
Sections
4, 5 and 6 are parts of one scheme. What first clause of sub-Section (1) of
Section 5 provides is that the fair rent of a building having been fixed under
Section 4 the same cannot be re- fixed once again. It is the rule of one-time
fixation of fair rent. This rule does not apply to any case of addition, improvement
or alteration having been carried out as stated in the later clause. It is an
exception to 'one-time fixation of fair rent' rule. In spite of fair rent of
building having been fixed already, the fair rent can be fixed again as per
formula laid down in the proviso on an addition, improvement or alteration
having been carried out. Such cases are excepted from the prohibition of 'no
further increase'.
Now
arises for determination the question of limitation for filing of execution
petition by the landlord or by the tenant. Here again, a perusal of the scheme
of Section 12 shows that the provision contemplates passing of an order
directing the tenant to deliver the possession of the building to the landlord
before a specified date under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Sub-Section (2)
does not contemplate an order for re-entry by tenant into possession being made
by the Controller; what the Controller does is to accept the undertaking given
by the landlord without which an order for delivery of possession by the tenant
in favour of the landlord under sub-section (1) shall not be passed. The
specification of dates by the Controller is dependant on and consequent to the
undertaking given by the landlord as condition precedent to the passing of the
decree. If the landlord does not give the undertaking contemplated by
sub-section (2), there shall be no order for recovery of possession under
sub-section (1).
Where
the tenant fails to deliver possession on or before the specified date to the
landlord, the landlord may execute the order of the Controller by filing an
execution petition which will be governed by Rule 23 and hence shall have to be
filed within a period of six months from the date of the order. The application
is by landlord who is a decree-holder having an executable order in his favour
in his hands. A tenant exercising his right of re-entry is neither a
decree-holder nor seeking execution of any order in his favour; he is seeking
enforcement of a solemn undertaking given by the landlord but for which the Controller
would not have made an order under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.
The tenant's application is not an application for execution and hence does not
attract applicability of Rule 23. It would be governed by Article 137 of the
Limitation Act, 1963; it being an application for which no period of limitation
is provided elsewhere and the period of three years shall begin to run when the
right to apply accrues. The right to apply will accrue on the date specified by
the Controller under sub-section (2) in this behalf.
The
period of limitation prescribed by Rule 23 may become otiose if applied to
tenant as the period for completion of building by landlord may itself be more
than six months and the period of limitation for tenant if governed by Rule 23
would have already expired by that time. An application filed before Rent
Controller can attract Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker (1995) 5 SCC 5.
There are three single-Judge Bench decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Prema
Bai Pitti 1992(3) ALT 181, taking the view that the limitation for application
by tenant seeking restoration of possession to him is governed by Rule 23.
These decisions do not lay down the correct law and are overruled.
However,
we hasten to add that the tenant must exercise his right to recover possession
within the time appointed by the Controller for the purpose or if no such time
is appointed then within a reasonable time and promptly on receiving offer from
the landlord in that regard failing which the right of the tenant to seek
restoration of possession shall be lost. The tenant who has allowed the time
appointed by the Controller to lapse or failed to avail the offer made by
landlord within a reasonable time need not be allowed relief by the Controller
in spite of his application being within limitation under Article 137 of the
Limitation Act. The limitation of three years is the outer limit of time
available to tenant seeking recovery of possession when the landlord has
defaulted.
Hence,
in the present case, the application filed by the tenant for enforcing the
right of re-entry pursuant to the undertaking given by the landlord, whether
incorporated in the order of the Controller or not, cannot be said to be barred
by limitation. It is futile to determine the question of limitation by
reference to Rule 23 above said. The High Court has rightly allowed the
revision petitions holding the application filed by the teant to be within
limitation and rightly held that it was open to the landlord to take necessary
steps for claiming fair rent. However, we clarify that the landlord shall be
entitled to claim fair rent as is permitted by law and till then the tenant
shall be liable to pay the rent at the same rate at which it was being paid.
Before
parting we notice that when the revisions filed by the tenant were allowed by
the High Court on 16.10.1998 it was brought to the notice of the High Court by
the landlord, at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, that the
reconstructed building had already been leased out to some other persons, and
therefore, the High Court directed the operation of its judgment to remain
stayed for approaching this Court. As to when and in what circumstances third
persons have been inducted into possession of re-built building, are not known
as the same are not discernible from the record. Before giving effect to the
order of the High Court, the Controller shall have to give notice to such third
parties who are presently in possession and they shall have to be heard. It is
difficult for us to anticipate what these third persons in possession may have
to say and, therefore, we make no observation on their rights, if any, and
leave it open to be determined by the Controller.
Subject
to the above said cautionary observation, the appeals are dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
