Important Point
The scope of defence that can be raised by the tenant in an application filed by the landlord under Section 14C of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for recovery of immediate possession of residential premises let out by him, is restricted and any defence unconnected with or unrelated to the claim or right of the applicant cannot be raised.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14C - Scope - Bonafide requirement of premises-Right of classified landlord to recover immediate possession-Eviction petition-Tenant as well as person claiming to be tenant-Both made parties to eviction-Leave to defend-Granted by Rent Controller in view of dispute regarding real tenant-Confirmed by High Court-Improper and liable to be set aside as defence unconnected with right of landlord cannot be raised by tenant under section 14C and, therefore, it is not relevant to consider as to who is real tenant so long as all of them are joined in eviction petition.
Held : Under Section 14C right has been conferred upon two categories of landlords to recover immediate possession of premises let out by them. The first category consists of landlords who are retired employees of the Central Government or of Delhi Administration and the second category consists of the landlords who are employees of the Central Government or the Delhi Administration and who have a period of less than one year preceding the date of their retirement. If such landlords apply within the specified time they become entitled to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if the said premises are required by them for their own residence. This being the nature of the right or claim of the landlord the scope of defence that can be raised by the tenant becomes restricted. As pointed out by this Court in Surjit Singh Kalra’s case (supra) in an application filed under Section 14B or 14C or 14D there cannot be any defence unconnected with or unrelated to the claim or right of the applicant. Therefore, in an application filed under Section 14C the contention which the tenant can raise is that the applicant is not the type of landlord referred to in Section 14C or that his claim of requirement of the premises is not bona fide. In such an application it would be irrelevant to consider as to who out of the respondents to the application is the tenant so long as all of them are joined as respondents in that application. The right of the landlord is to recover immediate possession of the premises and, therefore, if he joins as respondent the person who according to him is the tenant and also the person who claims to be the real tenant and in possession of the premises then the dispute as to who is the real tenant loses all its relevance. The Rent Controller and the High Court failed to consider this aspect and the law laid down in Surjit Singh Kalra’s case (supra). Moreover, in view of the fact that Respondent No. 1 who according to the appellant is the tenant and Respondent No. 2 who claims to be the tenant are wife and husband respectively and are residing together in the premises which have been let out, they ought not to have been given leave to defend the application on the ground that there was a bona fide and substantial dispute as to who out of the two is the tenant of the landlord. (Para 9)

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-The correctness of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 379 of 1997 is questioned in this appeal. The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the landlord against the order passed by the Rent Controller granting leave to the respondents to defend the eviction petition.

2. The appellant is the owner of the premises which are now in possession of the respondents. As he was to retire from Central Government service on 30.11.1996 he filed an eviction petition against both the respondents, in the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi under Sections 14(1)(e) and 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that he requires the premises bona fide for his residence. In his petition he has stated that Respondent No. 1, Jai Devi in his tenant but as Respondent No. 2, her husband, has been claiming that he and not his wife is the tenant of the premises the eviction petition is filed against both of them to avoid any technical objection. Both the respondents appeared before the Rent Controller and filed separate applications for leave to defend. They have raised a dispute that Respondent No. 2 is the tenant and not Respondent No. 1. They have also raised a dispute that the premises are a part of the joint family property, and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner alone is not maintainable and as the petitioner has been residing in the remaining part of the premises with his brothers his claim that he requires the premises for his residence is not bona fide. The Rent Controller believed that there was a partition amongst the brothers and the appellant is since then the owner of the premises. Thus, he held that, the first condition of Section 14C is satisfied. As it was not disputed that the petitioner was a Central Government employee and that he was about to retire when he filed the petition, the Rent Controller held that the second ingredient of Section 14C is also satisfied. But taking the view that there is a substantial dispute between the appellant and the respondents as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant, the third ingredient of Section 14C, the respondents are entitled to leave, not only under Section 14(1)(e) but also under Section 14C of the Act. The Rent Controller, therefore, granted leave to both the respondents to defend the eviction petition.

3. Aggrieved by that order the appellant filed a revision petition to the High Court under Section 25B of the Act. The High Court held that if the ground pleaded by the respondents is accepted then that would entail dismissal of petition under Section 14C for the reason that if the Respondent No. 2, is proved to be the tenant of the premises then the petition against respondent No. 1 would fail and it would also fail against Respondent No. 2, as in the petition only Respondent No. 1 is stated to be the tenant. Taking this view the High Court dismissed the revision application.

4. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that as the appellant has made both the respondents parties to the eviction petition and has stated therein that according to him Respondent No. 1 is the tenant and that Respondent No. 2 claims to be the tenant the eviction petition cannot fail against any one of them and, therefore, the High Court has committed an error of law in taking a contrary view. He further submitted that the High Court ought not to have granted leave to defend on such a technical and frivolous ground. On the other hand Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, supported the judgment of the High Court and also the order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the controversy between the parties as to who is the tenant has been rightly regarded as substantial and a good ground for granting leave.

5. In order to decide whether the view taken is correct or not we will now refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 14(1) grants pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 628

Cases Referred (1)