SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.
Shri Nihal Chand, Appellant
Versus
Shri Kalyan Chand Jain, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1977
Decided on 15-11-1977.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bhadur Saharya, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. Radha Krishna Makhija, S.K. Mehta and P. N. Puri, Advocates, for Respondent.
Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 – Section 14A/ 25B – Tenant – Claim of compensation – Jurisdiction - Fourthly it was contended that application for eviction was wholly mala fide because premises were let out initially at a rent of per month which was increased per month with effect and thereafter it was further increased per month and further because when ground-floor premises of the house in question had fallen vacant on two occasions prior to the filing of the application landlord instead of himself occupying the said premises, had let out the same at higher rents – Held, It is true that in this letter it has been stated that the allotment of the Government accommodation in favor of the appellant-landlord shall be deemed to have been cancelled with effect from that is to say after allowing concessional period of two months admissible to him under rules after his retirement from Government service but by the same letter appellant-landlord has been informed that he is liable to pay enhanced market fee with effect being a house-owner - In other words, even by this letter enhanced market fee is claimed from appellant-landlord with effect which could only be on the basis that was called upon to vacate the premises on or before pursuant to the general order which was served upon him - It was faintly argued by that demand for enhanced fee with effect from made by the Government by this letter must be by mistake because in the main body of the letter it has been recited that the allotment of the Government premises in favor of the appellant is deemed to have been cancelled with effect - It is not possible to accept this contention and it appears to us that the reference to deemed cancellation of the allotment of the appellant with effect is a mistake in view of the decision of the contents of the general order - In any case the letter on which reliance has been placed by Mr. is self-contradictory and can be of no avail to show that the appellant was required to vacate the premises on account of retirement and not on ground of his owning residential accommodation in Union Territory of Delhi, especially, in view of the general order that was served upon the appellant-landlord - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
TULZAPURKAR, J. :—This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated Dec. 6, 1976 of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appellant-landlords application for eviction under Sec. 14A (1) read with S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, which provisions were inserted therein by Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (No. 24 of 1975) subsequently replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1976.
2. The appellant-landlord being a Government servant was at the material time in occupation of a residential accommodation bearing No. B-11/791, situated at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, the same having been allotted to him by the Central Government. It appears that he owns a two and a half storied residential house bearing No. F-43, Green Park, New Delhi, in his own name. In 1968 the appellant-landlord let out the first floor of his said house to the respondent for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was later on increased to Rs. 400/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water charges. By a general order dated Sept. 9, 1975, the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, Directorate of Estates, took a decision, in supersession of all previous orders on the subject, that Government servants who have or own houses at the place of their posting, within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality, should be required to vacate Government accommodation allotted to them, within three months from the 1st of October, 1975 and that in default of their vacating Government accommodation by December 31, 1975, they should be charged enhanced licence fee at the market rates. Pursuant to this decision, by a general order dated September 30, 1975, issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, all officers and members of the staff who owned houses in their own names or in the names of their families and were occupying Government accommodation were called upon to vacate the Government accommodation within three months with effect from October 1, 1975, failing which they were informed that they which would be charged market rent after such date. Copies of this order were circulated to all Offices and Branches at Headquarters and all outstation offices for information and in particular a copy was also forwarded to the appellant-landlord who happened to be the Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Office, Dept. of Supply, Government of India. In view of this order dated September 30, 1975, the appellant-landlord on December 19, 1975 filed an application under Section 14A (1) read with Sec. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (No. 24 of 1975) for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the first floor of house No. F-43, Green Park, New Delhi, on the ground that he had been asked to vacate the Government accommodation on account of his owning a house in the Union Territory of Delhi and had incurred an obligation to pay penal licence fee in default. In response to the summons served upon him in accordance with the Third Schedule under Sec. 25B (2) of the said Ordinance the respondent-tenant filed on January 16, 1976 an application supported by a detailed affidavit, seeking leave to contest and defend the case on several grounds. First, it was contended that the summary procedure provided under Section 25B was available not for an application filed under Sec. 14A (1) but only for an application seeking eviction on ground of personal bona fide requirement under S. 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Secondly, it was contended that even otherwise since according to the landlords own showing he had retired from Government service on November 30, 1975 and was, therefore liable to vacate the Government accommodation, the application under S. 14A (1) was not maintainable : in other words, Section 14A (1) was not meant for a retired Government servant or a Government servant who was transferred outside Delhi. Thirdly, it was contended tha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.