Once Tenant Did Not Adhere To Court's Direction, He Cannot Attribute Violation Of Such Directions On Part Of Landlord: HP HC

In its recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition alleging a violation of directions contained in the decision dated Mar 17, 2016, rendered in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2016, while holding that tenant had lost his right to allege any violation of a judgment on the part of the landlord when he failed to adhere to it.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua observed that “Once the petitioner-tenant had not adhered to the timeline indicated in the first direction contained in the judgment, he cannot be heard to complain about the violation of the other directions in the judgment and the timeline indicated therein by the respondents-landlords.”

Senior Advocate Sudhir Thakur appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate K.D. Sood appeared for the Respondents.

In a nutshell, the Petitioner/tenant had alleged contempt on the part of the Respondent (landlord) contending that he failed to comply with the directions under the judgment passed by the Revisional Court, i.e.; to start the construction of the premises within six months, which was granted to the landlord on bona fide requirement to commence reconstruction. Direction was also passed to complete the construction within one year and after then the tenant shall be re-inducted within one month after completion of the construction.

After perusing the submission, the Bench noted that the Petitioner had himself failed to comply with the directions of the Court and did not vacate the premises within four months and it was only after an execution warrant was issued by the Rent Controller, that the Petitioner vacated the premises.

In the said facts and circumstances when the Respondents-landlords were compelled to file an execution petition for enforcement of the order passed by the Rent Controller, the Bench observed that the directions issued earlier by Himachal Pradesh High Court in the judgment dated Mar 17, 2016, had virtually lost their efficacy.

“All the directions were in a chain and flowed from the first direction issued to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises within the specified period. This direction was issued based upon petitioner’s own undertaking to vacate the premises within the indicated period”, added the Bench.

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Ravi alias Bachana v. Pawan Sahni and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order