Tenant's Waiver of Right to Challenge Eviction Upheld under Rent Restriction Act

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in an eviction case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The petitioner, a tenant, submitted an undertaking to vacate but later sought to challenge the High Court's order. The Supreme Court ruled that by submitting the undertaking, the petitioner waived the right to challenge the eviction order, citing the principle of election. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision for the petitioner to vacate the premises.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of eviction initiated by the landlord against the tenant under section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The main contention was whether the landlord qualified as a 'specified landlord' under the Act.

Details of the Judgment:
The respondent, a former employee of the Government of Haryana, sought eviction of the petitioner from a residential house in Chandigarh under section 13A of the Act. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the petition, but the High Court allowed the revision, stating that the respondent, as a Comptroller in the University, was a 'specified landlord' under the Act. The High Court directed the petitioner to vacate within a month, upon fulfilling certain conditions.

The petitioner sought three months to vacate and waiver of the undertaking requirement, but the High Court rejected the petition. The petitioner then submitted an undertaking to vacate within a month, subject to the right to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the eviction order. The Supreme Court ordered a stay on dispossession pending further proceedings.

The respondent argued that the petitioner, by submitting the undertaking, cannot challenge the High Court's judgment. The petitioner contended that the undertaking was given due to the court's closure and his intention to file a special leave petition. The Supreme Court held that by submitting the undertaking, the petitioner chose to avail protection from eviction and cannot challenge the High Court's order.

The Court cited the principle of election, stating that a party cannot accept benefits under an order and then challenge its validity. Referring to previous cases, the Court emphasized that giving an undertaking precludes challenging the eviction order. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition without costs.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the petitioner, having availed protection by submitting the undertaking, cannot challenge the eviction order in the Supreme Court.

---