Judgment

Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, J.:- This appeal by special leave raises a question of some interest and importance for decision. The question is whether the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. If they do, no person can institute any suit or proceeding for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. For the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the Slum Clearance Act" and the "Delhi Rent Act" respectively.

2. The respondent is a government servant employed in the Railway Ministry (Railway Board) and was in that capacity occupying quarters allotted to him by the Government at Nanakpura New Delhi. By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31,1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and was, therefore, liable to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Government. The respondent was paying to the Government a monthly rent of Rs. 65.06 but since he did not vacate the premises as required, the Government started charging him after January 1, 1976 a monthly rent of Rs. 569.50 at the market rate.

3. The respondent owns a house bearing No. 5014, Ward No. XI, at Roshanara Road, New Delhi. A part of that house is in the occupation of the appellants at a monthly rent of Rs. 6.25. On being asked to vacate the official quarters, the respondent gave to the appellants a notice to quit and followed it up by filing an application for eviction against them under Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act. On March 12, 1976 the appellants filed before the Rent Controller an affidavit under Section 25B (4) of the Delhi Rent Act, setting out the grounds on which they sought to contest the application for eviction and asking for leave to contest it. One of such grounds was that the application was not maintainable since the respondent had not obtained permission of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act, the house being situated in a Slum area. By his order dated April 28, 1976 the Rent Controller rejected the application of the appellants for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent. As a sequitur, the Rent Controller passed an order on the same date stating that since the appellants application for leave to contest the ejectment application was rejected, respondent was entitled to a decree for eviction. The appellants were asked to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months of the order.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants filed Civil Revision Application No. 390 of 1976 in the Delhi High Court, under the proviso to Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Act. By reason of Section 25B (8), no appeal or second appeal lies against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Rent Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 25B. The proviso confers power on the High Court, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Rent Controller under Section 25B is according to law, to call for the record of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. The revision application was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court who, following his own earlier judgment in Civil Revn. Application No. 280 of 1976, dismissed it, giving rise to this appeal.

5. A question was raised before the High Court as to whether at the relevant time the respondent was is occupation of the premises allotted to him by the Government, but it was not disputed before us that he was in occupation of the premises allotted to him by the Government when he filed the present proceedings for eviction of the appellants. Thus, the only question which arises before us is whether, the premises being situated