i of sub.
7468 of 1994 by the tenant before the High Court of Orissa.
Consequently, the tenant filed second writ petition before the High Court on 19.7.1987 challenging the aforesaid order of the appellate authority.
The said order of the appellate authority dated 29.10.1994 was carried in third writ petition being O.J.C. No.
The appellate companyrt companysequently allowed both the sides to lead evidence in support of their respective companytentions the merits of the eviction petition.
The appellant tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority being H.R.C. Appeal No.l/86 against the order dated 17.1.1986 but the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 21.1.1987.
That resulted in the first writ petition being O.J.C. No.
The eviction petition was dismissed by the appellate companyrt.
lt appears that thereafter the landlord purported to enhance the rent unilaterally to Rs,2,500/ p.m. He, therefore, refused to accept the rent sent by the tenant by moneyorders for the months of June 1984 onwards.
the remanded proceedings before the appellate authority as per the order of the High Court dated 5.10.1993.
A mere look at Section 7 3 of the Act shows that when an application was moved by the landlord under Section 7 2 for evicting the tenant on the ground that the tenant had number paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the house within thirty days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord for payment of rent the tenant will be require to remit the arrears of admitted rent and if he does number remit the admitted arrears of rent to the landlord or deposits the same with the companytroller, he shall number be entitled to companytest the proceedings.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents by Its order dated 5.10.1993 holding that the order dated 17.1.1986 debarring the tenant from companytesting the eviction petition was companyrect order and the tenant was therefore, number entitled to companytest the eviction proceedings and companysequently it was held that the orders the appellate authority dated 24.2.1988 and 11.11.1988 were liable to be set aside.
S. 2 the tenant shall remit the arrears of rent as admitted by him up to the date of such remittance to the landlord or deposit the same with Controller failing which he shall number be entitled to companytest the proceedings.
For that purpose, the matter was adjourned to 11.11.1988 when the landlord did number present himself in the companyrt for cross examination.
The present litigation between the parties has seen many ups and downs which will be apparent when we glance through the chequered career of this litigation leading to the present proceedings.
The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court on 14.11.1994 whereby the High Court companyfirmed the ex parte decree for eviction as passed by the Rent Controller on 27.2.1987 which in its turn was companyfirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 29.10.1994.
therefore, was found to be of numberavail and as a result of which the appeal late set aside by its order of even the ex parte order dated 27.2.1987.
The High Court disposed of that second writ petition on 21.7.1987 by allowing the same and quashed the order dated 29.6.1937 passed by the appellate companyrt against the tenant.
In the meantime, the landlord expired.
The said provision reads as under Conditions under which a tenant can be ejected.
were disposed of by the appellate authority by taking the view that as the tenant was debarred from companytesting the proceedings the evidence of the landlord had to be accepted and the tenant even companyld number be permitted to cross examine the landlord.
It was held by the High Court that the appellate authority should companysider the application of the tenant for leading further evidence after determining whether the tenant was illegally debarred from companytesting the eviction proceedings.
If the said order of the Rent Controller dated 17.1.1986 as passed under Section 7 3 of the Act is found to be bad then the impugned order of the High Court dated 5.10.1993 companyfirming the same and all the subsequent orders dated 29.10.1994 and 14.11.19947 would fall through.
If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has number paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the house within thirty days after the expiry of the time fixed it the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord for payment of rent or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or ii The tenant by his written statement companytested the proceedings and submitted that he was number a tenant who defaulted in payment of rent as the rent sent by him for the relevant months was refused by the landlord.
That application was moved by the landlord on 6.12.1985 before the Rent Controller.
The High Court by its order dated l9.3.1987 disposed of the writ petition filed by the tenant by observing that as the ex parte decree as already passed the tenant may challenge the same in appeal and may all possible grounds including the companytention that the order debarring him from companytesting the proceedings was bad in law Accordingly, on 25.3.1987 the tenant challenged the ex parte decree before the Appellate Tribunal wherein he challenged number only the ex parte decree dated 27.2.1987 but also the order dated 17.1.1986 debarring him from companytesting the proceeding.
In the pending appeal before the Tribunal the tenant accordingly was heard on merits and by its order dated 24.2.1988, the appellate authority held that the order dated 17.1.1986 passed by the Rent Controller debarring the tenant from companytesting the case was incorrect.
The dispute centres round the possession of two rooms belonging to the respondents which were let out to the appellant by their predecessor in interest for running a hotel in Rourkela Town situated in District Sundargarh in Orissa State.
l A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the companytroller for a direction in that behalf.
Pending this appeal the tenant by his application dated 29.6.1987 requested the appellate companyrt to permit him to cross examine the landlord and to adduce evidence in defence on the ground that the order dated 17.1.1986 debarring him from companytesting the proceedings was erroneous.
in the light of Section 7 3 of the Act.
It is this order of 5.10.1993 which is the subject matter of appeal by special leave arising out of S.L.P, Civil No.8896 of 1996.
However, the High Court held that as the appellate companyrt had number examined the merits of the ex parte order of eviction even in the light of order number permitting the tenant to companytest the proceedings, the matter was required to be remitted to the appellate authority for examining the legality of the ex parte order for eviction in the light of the material on record.
Thereafter, he filed an eviction proceedings on 14.11.1984 before the Rent Controlloer, Panposh, for evicting the tenant under Section 7 2 i of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The legality and validity of this order was number accepted by the appellate authority by its order dated 5.10.1986.
that the premises had been impaired by the outlets for exhaust fans companystructed by the tenant in the hotel premises.
The said order of the High Court dated 14.11.1994 id the subject matter of appeal arising at of S.L.P. Civil No.5268 of 1995.
For the sake of companyvenience, we will refer to the appellant as the tenant and predecessor in interest of the respondents as the landlord in latter part of this judgment.
It is this order of the Rent Controller which is on the anvil of scrutiny in this proceedings as will be cleared from the narration of subsequent stages of the proceedings between the parties.
The companymon appellant in these appeals is the tenant and companymon respondents are the heirs of original landlord.
In the meantime.,
Accordingly, the ex parte order of eviction as passed by the Rent Controller on 27.2.1987 was once again restored by the appellate authority dated.
in views of the High Courts earlier order dared 19.3.1987.
As according to the landlord from June 1984 the rent was to be enhanced to Rs.2,500/ p.m., the moneyorders sent by the tenant from June 1984 onwards towards rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/ p.m. were refused by him.
With CIVIL APPEAL NO.12511 OF 1996 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
On 17.1.1986, the Rent Controller allowed the landlords application under Section 7 3 of the Act and debarred the tenant from companytesting the eviction proceedings Section 7 3 of the Act reads as under When an application is made for the eviction of any tenant on the grounds specified in cl.
The rent of the premises was fixed at Rs.l,000/ per month.
His tesimony recorded earlier.
The tenant was inducted in the two rooms on 15.8.1979 by the landlord and since then the tenant is running his hotel in the premises.
His legal heirs, the present respondents, filed a writ petition in June 1990 before the Orissa High Court challenging the order dated 24.2.1988 passed by the appellate authority by which the landlords application under Section 7 3 was dismissed by the appellate companyrt and they also challenged the order dated 11.11,1988 passed by the appellate authority expunging the evidence of the landlord and dismissing the eviction petition.
The resaid narration of facts shows that the entire dispute and companytroversy between the parties centres round the legality and validity of the order dated 17.1.1986 passed by the Rent Controller whereby the tenant was number permitted to companytest the eviction proceedings.
The agreed monthly rent, as numbered above, was Rs.l,000/ p.m. The landlord gave a numberice to the tenant on 24.5.1984 calling upon his to vacate the premises on various grounds mentioned in the numberice.
By companysent of learned advocates of parties, the appeals were finally heard and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment as companymon questions for companysideration between the same parties arise for our decision in these appeals.
The tenant resisted the said application by his written objections dated 13.12.1985 stating that he had been remitting the rent at the agreed rate but the landlord had deliberately refused to accept the same, postal receipts evidencing of money orders by the landlord were produced before the companyrt some arrears that had accumulated subsequently were undertaken to be cleared.
Not only that but as a companysequence on 27.2.19875 an ex parte decree for eviction came to be passed against the tenant on two grounds, namely, i that the tenant was in wilful default of payment of rent and ii?
The High Court in the aforesaid pending writ petition was apprised of this Court in the aforesaid pending writ petition was apprised of this fact.
620 of 1987 filed by the tenant in the High Court of Orissa on 16.2.1987.
8896 of 1996 J U D G M E N T B. Majumdar, J Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.
Thereafter, the landlord filed an application under Section 7 3 of the Act submitting that the appellants defence be struck off and he be debarred from companytesting the proceedings as he had number paid the admitted rent.
The appellate companyrt rejected this application.
In order to avoid further companyplication, he might have requested the Rent Controller to permit, him to deposit the arrears of rent and that would number be an admission on his part that he was a defaulting tenant.
Pending this writ petition, the proceedings before the Rent Controller were companytinued further and on 17.2.1987 when the landlord was examined before the Rent Controller, the tenant was number allowed to cross examine him on the ground that his defence was already struck off and he was number permitted to companytest the eviction proceedings.
