JUDGMENT

A. VARADARAJAN, J. :— This appeal by special leave is directed against the one word order dated 1-2-1980 of- the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing Civil Revn. Petn. No. 122 of 1980 in limine. The tenants who were respondents in the Rent Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil Revision Petition against the Rent Controllers order dated 30-10-1979, declining to permit them to raise certain grounds of defence while granting leave to defend the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave to appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court has been granted by this Court only on the question whether S. 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of the case "in view of the later Circular of 1977". The "later Circular of 1977" mentioned in the special leave granted by this Court on 5-8-1980 is the office Memorandum dated 14-7-1977 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, Directorate of Estates, hereinafter referred to as the "second notification". The same Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the same Ministry had issued the earlier Memorandum dated 9-9-1975, hereinafter referred to as the "first notification".

2. The respondent-landlord filed the petition for eviction of the appellants under S. 14A read with S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". In the Eviction Petition the respondent had alleged that by virtue of his being a Government servant he has been allotted residential accommodation at No. 83 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi since November 1971. Under the first notification he is required to vacate the Government accommodation and shift to his own house No. 11-B Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, which is now in the occupation of the appellants, and if he failed to do so he is to incur the obligation of paying rent / licence fee of Rupees 1,448/- per mensem on the ground that he owns a residential building in the Union Territory of Delhi and still continues to occupy Government accommodation. The appellants have not vacated the premises occupied by them in spite of several assurances given by them since February 1976. The respondent is paying penal rent of Rs. 1,448/- per mensem for the Govt. accommodation because he had not vacated that accommodation provided to him by the Government as a Government servant.

3. After presentation of the Eviction Petition and service of notice under Section 25B of the Act, the appellants filed a Petition for grant of leave to defend the main Petition. One of the objections disallowed, with which we are concerned in this appeal, is that in view of the second notification the respondent is not required to vacate the Government accommodation now available to him and that he is, therefore, not entitled to evict the appellants under the provisions of Sec. 14A of the Act. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Additional Rent Controller has been dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court as mentioned above. The appellants have, therefore, filed this appeal by special leave against that order.

4. We are concerned in this appeal with S. 14A (1) of the Act, which reads thus :

"14A (1). Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority is required, by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by that Government or authority, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order to such landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force in any contract (whe