SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.
Shafait Ali, Appellant
Versus
Shiv Mal (dead) by LRs. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 1982,
D/- 31-7-1987.
Delhi Rent Control Act – Section 14 and 25 - Eviction of premises - Bona fide – Appeal by special leave against judgment and order High Court of Delhi in Civil directing eviction of premises in question ground of bona fide requirement of landlord special leave was sought for and obtained from this Court on ground that Civil Appeal and special leave petition were pending at that time appears that said appeal has been disposed of by this Court where this Court held are special provisions so far as landlord and tenant are concerned and further of non obstante clause in section these provisions override existing law so far as new procedure is concerned – Held, Court held that there is no difference either on principle or in law between even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations – Court further held that of procedure in Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for landlord to obtain permission of Competent Authority Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction – Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated the 16th March, 1982 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Revn. No. 147 of 1982 directing eviction of the premises in question under S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The special leave was sought for and obtained from this Court on the ground that Civil Appeal No. 1051/81 and special leave petition (civil) No. 2290/82 were pending at that time. It appears that the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava (1984) 2 SCR 614 where this Court held that Ss. 14A, 14(1)(e), 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in view of the non obstante clause in the section these provisions override the existing law so far as the new procedure is concerned. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in cases covered by Ss. 14A and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.
2. This Court held that there is no difference either on principle or in law between Ss. 14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations.
3. This Court further held that in view of the procedure in Chapter IIIA of the Rent Act, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority under S. 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within S. 14(1)(e) or 14A of the Rent Act.
4. In the premises the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
5. The decree for eviction shall not be executed before 30-11-87 provided the appellant files an undertaking in the usual form within four weeks from today.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 214
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.