"Patently Erred In Interpreting Consent Order": SC Sets Aside HC Judgment Which Declared A Tenant As Land Owner
The Supreme Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that declared a tenant as land owner observing that the High Court patently erred in interpreting the consent order.
The Court noted that the consent order was only for dismissing and allowing application under Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971. The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal after the High Court in the Second Appeal reversed the decision of the first Appellate Court which upheld the decision of the trial Court.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “No document, much less a registered instrument, was executed between the parties transferring the title of the suit premises. In its absence obviously no transfer of title can pass from one party to another.”
Advocate Rajesh Gupta appeared for the Appellants-landlord and Advocate Rajesh Srivastava appeared for the Respondents-tenants.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971. The parties reached a settlement where the tenant agreed to pay Rs. 12,500 by a set date, failing which the landlord's eviction application would proceed. The tenant paid the amount and hence, the eviction case was dismissed. The landlord challenged the outcome, but both the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the settlement.
The tenant sought execution of the consent order with the aim that his name be recorded as the owner. The Court rejected it as the building had since collapsed. The tenant then filed a suit for possession, which was dismissed by the trial and First Appellate Court. The High Court in the Second Appeal ruled that the tenant had become the owner under the consent order and was entitled to possession. Hence, the present Civil Appeal.
To answer the question whether under the consent order passed on an application under Section 14 of the Act moved by the landlord, the tenant can claim himself to be the owner of the property after depositing the amount the Court said, “…depends upon the interpretation of the consent order vis-à-vis the statements of the landlord and tenant recorded by the Rent Controller in passing the aforesaid consent order.”
The Court noted that the two statements by both the parties to the rent controller nowhere provide that the amount liable to be deposited by the tenant was a sale consideration of the property, though, it may have been stated that it is equivalent to the value of the property or that the tenant, or on deposit of such an amount, he would become the owner of the property.
“Therefore, on the plain reading of the above statements, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there was any settlement of transfer of the property on the above sale consideration.”, the Court observed.
The Court said, “aforesaid consent order was only with regard to dismissing and allowing of the application of the landlord in the eventuality of depositing of the amount and non- depositing of the amount by the tenant.”
The Court said that the settlement recorded in terms of the statements of the parties and even the consent order does not in any way provide or confer right of ownership upon the tenant, nor it could have been done in a proceeding for eviction of the tenant.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court decision and allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Beena v. Charan Das (D) Thr. Lrs. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 680)
