Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 1982
2000(8) Supreme 291
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Madan Lal Gupta -Petitioner
versus
Ravinder Kumar -Respondent
SLP (C) No. 10729 of 2000
With Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 249 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 10729 of 2000
Decided on 6-12-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Dinesh Diwedi, Sr. Advocate, Vikas Singh, Amitesh Kumar, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Ms. Rekha Pandey, B.V. Balram Das, D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 (NP) : In person for Contempt Petition.
Headnote:(i) Delhi Rent Control Act-Section 25B read with Section 14-Leave defend- Eviction petition on ground of bona fide personal occupation-Rent Controller and High Court examined question as to extent of accommodation and requirement of landlord and concluded against tenant-Interference not warranted. (Para 1)
(ii) Delhi Rent Control Act-Sections 14A, 25A, 25B, 25C and 54- Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956-Sections 3 and 19-Eviction of tenant in slum area- Provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act would prevail over Slum Area Act. (Paras 3 & 4)
(iii) Contempt of Court Act, 1971 -Section 2(b)-Wilful disobedience of Court s order-Eviction decree- Appeal thereagainst to Supreme Court-Interim stay granted- Contemners attempting to enforce decree contrary to order of Court- Stand taken in reply to show cause notice pervaricating-Explanation that tenant did not produce certified copy of Court-Not satisfactory to mitigate charge made against contemners-At the intervention of 3rd contemner actual possession not taken-Contemners 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 10,000 each to applicant by way of exemplary cost-Charge against 3rd Contemner dropped. (Paras 6 to 8)
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-SLP (C) No. 10729 of 2000 :
In this petition the petitioner is calling in question an order passed by the High Court in a Revision Petition arising out of a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller refused to grant leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent for his bonafide need. The question as to the extent of accommodation and the requirement of the respondent is dependent on actual facts arising in the case. Inasmuch as the Rent Controller as well as the High Court have examined the matter and concluded against the petitioner, we fail to understand as to how we can interfere with the decision made by the High Court affirming the order of the Rent Controller.
2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon two decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran1, and Liaq Ahmed & Ors. v. Shri Habeeb-Ur-Rehman2. Neither of these two decisions set down any principle of law so as to call for interference by us. In these two cases on the facts arising in the case certain orders have been passed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise an additional ground relying upon a letter issued by the Director (Town Planning) on 29.6.2000 that the property in question in respect of which eviction is sought for is included in the areas which have already been declared as Slum Areas under Section 3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956. He further contended that Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 stands in the way of the landlord for evicting the tenant without obtaining previous permission in writing of the competent authority.
4. This Court in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal3, held that the Delhi Rent Control Act wherein Chapter III-A and provisions of Sections 14-A, 25-A, 25-B, 25-C and 54 have been inserted in 1975 later to the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act and, therefore, provisions of the Delhi Rent Act would prevail over the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act. In view of the decision in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal case (supra) the contention raised by the petitioner cannot stand and the same stands rejected.
5. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court and dismiss the petition.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 249/2000 in SLP (C) No. 10729/2000
6. When the special leave petition came up for consideration at the stage of preliminary hearing, this Court, while directing issue of notice to the respondents of the case also granted ad interim stay of execution of the decree for possession in the meantime. But even so, it appears, respondent No. 1 with the help of respondent No. 2 made an attempt to enforce the decree contrary to the order of this Court. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 is rather astonishing and is set out hereunder :
"I submit that the Petitioner was granted stay of eviction on 24.7.2000, yet he made no effort to submit a certified copy of the stay order in the Court of the learned Rent Controller or serve a copy on me although he is living in the same building. Therefore, when the Petitioner showed only a photocopy of the proceedings dated 24.7.2000 (not the stay order), I expressed my doubt and showed reluctance to believe that the copy is a genuine one. Therefore, I asked the Contemner No. 2 about the truthfulness and validity of the stay as he is supposed to have knowledge of the proceedings in such cases. The Contemner No. 2 told me that he is not bound by the orders of any other Court as his concerned Court has given him the warrant of possession to get the eviction of the suit premises. Contemner No. 2 further told me that it is the mandatory duty of the person having a stay order to inform the decree holder within 10 days of receiving the stay order and to intimate the concerned Court within 30 days. As the J.D. had not complied with this mandatory duty, Cont
