Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :- The appellant is a tenant of the respondents in respect of one room in a house at Kamla Nagar, New Delhi. The rent of the room is Rs. 10/- per month. On March 19, 1967 the respondents filed an application for possession of the room on two grounds, one, that the appellant was in arrears of rent and two that they required the room bona fide for their own use and occupation. An order was passed by the Rent Controller in that proceeding under Section 14(2) read with Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter called "the Act"), calling upon the appellant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent within one month. The appellant complied with that order, whereupon. on April 1, 1968 respondents withdrew the ejectment application, with liberty to file a fresh application. The reason stated by the respondents for withdrawing the application was that they had not given to the appellant a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that, therefore, the application was liable to fail for a formal defect.

2. Immediately thereafter, on April 7, 1968 respondents gave a notice to quit to the appellant, terminating his tenancy with effect from May 9, 1968. On May 13, 1968, respondents filed a fresh application for .possession against the appellant on the ground that they required the room bona fide for their-personal use. That application was dismissed on February 14, 1969.

3. On March 9, 1971 respondents filed the instant application against the appellant for possession of the room on the ground that the appellant was in arrears of rent from April 1968 until March 1971. In this proceeding. the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi refused to pass an order under Section 15(1) of the Act on the ground that such a benefit was given to the appellant in the, first eviction petition and that, by reason of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, the appellant could not claim that benefit once again. In that view of the matter, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against he appellant.

4. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order of eviction was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal, which took the view that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the provision contained in Section 14(2) of the Act and that the proviso to that sub-section had no application because, the benefit of the provision contained in section 14(2) was being availed of by the appellant for the first time in the present, proceedings. According to the Tribunal, the first ejectment application filed by the respondents against the appellant was dismissed because respondents asked for leave to withdraw that application with liberty to file a fresh application on the ground that they had not served a notice to quit on the appellant and not on the ground that the appellant had complied with the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act.

5. The judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal was set aside in Second Appeal by the High Court of Delhi. The High Court took the view that though the first ejectment application was withdrawn by the respondents on the ground that they had not given a notice to quit to the appellant that cannot alter the position that the appellant had availed of the benefit of the provision contained in Section 14(2) of the Act. Therefore, according to the High Court, by reason of the proviso to Section 14(2). the appellant was not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act. By this appeal, the tenant challenges the correctness of the judgment of the High Court.

6. Section 14 of the Act contains provisions which are more or less similar to the provisions contained in various other Rent Acts. Sub-section (1) of that section contains the prohibitory provision that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Contro