2024:MLHC:685
Serial No. 26
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 140 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.07.2024
Shri. George M. Lanong
S/o M. Lanong
R/o Malki, Nongshiliang,
Shillong-793001 :::Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Meghalaya
Through the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya,
Department of Law,
Meghalaya Civil Secretariat,
Shillong, Meghalaya
And
2.Md. Habib
S/o (L) Md. Jaffrar Kharkongor,
R/o Mirrullah Building,
Police Bazaar, G.S. Road,
Shillong, Meghalaya :::Respondents
1
2024:MLHC:685
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chakrawarty, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. E. Laloo, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, GA (For R 1)
Mr. S. Kumar, Adv.
Ms. R. Kharkongor, Adv. (For R 2).
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Oral:
1. The writ petitioner who is stated to be a tenant under the respondent
No. 2, is before this Court with a prayer to extend limitation of 30(thirty)
days stipulated by the Meghalaya Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1972, and
to allow the petitioner to deposit the total accrued amount of arrears of rent
as a one-time deposit, the non-deposit of rents on time thereof, being
attributed to the advent of COVID-19 pandemic.
2. It has been submitted by Mr. S. Chakrawarty, learned Senior counsel
on behalf of the petitioner that due to a dispute with the landlord/respondent
No. 2, the petitioner had been depositing the rent in Court and that w.e.f.
2
2024:MLHC:685
February, 2020, could not deposit the same on account of the onset of
COVID-19. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in cognizance
thereof, of the hardships that would be caused to litigants during the
pandemic had excluded the period of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, for the
purposes of limitation, as made and prescribed under any general or special
laws. It has been also contended that the instant writ petition is
maintainable, inasmuch as, the case is basically against a state made
legislation, wherein the limitation for deposit of rent has been prescribed.
He lastly prays that in view of the circumstances, some consideration be
given to extend the period of limitation to allow the petitioner to deposit the
rents as due.
3. Mr. S. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in reply has
strenuously argued that, the writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as,
the Rent Court itself has adequate powers under Section 151 CPC, to
address the issue in question. He further submits that, the claim that rent has
been paid upto March, 2020 is false, as no rent has been paid after 2018,
after the suit for eviction had been instituted. The learned counsel submits
that though the Supreme Court had allowed relaxation of the period of
limitation upto 28.02.2022, the petitioner has approached this Court only in
the month of May 2023, to thwart the expiry of the lease agreement which
3
2024:MLHC:685
had expired on 11.06.2023, and as such, cannot claim to be seeking any
relief under the orders of the Supreme Court and this Court.
4. Mr. S. Sen, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 submits that the said
respondent has no role whatsoever to play in the matter, but however, has
referred to an order dated 15.06.2020, passed by this Court in PIL No. 3 of
2020, wherein relaxations was allowed for rent deposits till 30.06.2020, but
that the PIL was closed on 02.02.2021, as by efflux of time, the matter had
become infructuous.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and on examining
the materials on record, firstly it is noted that the matter concerns a private
dispute for which alternate efficacious remedy is available by approaching
the Rent Court itself. Secondly, disputed facts have been brought into play
without any supporting materials on the claim to payment of rent. Thirdly, it
is noted the writ petitioner while seeking to obtain relief by taking shelter of
the orders of the Supreme Court, which allowed relaxation upto 28.02.2022,
has approached this Court over a year thereafter, in 18.05.2023. Without the
necessity of any further discussion, on the face of the facts as presented by
the writ petitioner, the matter being purely a private dispute, and in the
4
2024:MLHC:685
presence of disputed facts, the instant writ petition is held to be not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 5
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2024.07.31 17:48:55 IST
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)