Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1856

2009(8) Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee, and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Prithipal Singh — Appellant
versus
Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8501 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19921 of 2006)
Decided on : 18-12-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :Satinder Singh Gulati, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates for the Appellant.
For the Respondents:Rajesh Tyagi and Atishi Dipankar, Advocates for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 25B itself is a special code and therefore, Rent Controller, while dealing with an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to follow strictly in compliance with Section 25B of the Act.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 14(1)(e),25B- Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 – Rule 23 – Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 – Appeal against Judgment and order passed by High Court whereby High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant and upheld the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi – The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that he is conferred with power to set aside an ex – parte order for eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of Cpc was thereby affirmed by the High Court in appeal- Held Section 25B. itself is a special code and therefore, Rent Controller, while dealing with an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to follow strictly in compliance with Section 25B of the Act – Hence , after insertion of Section 25B of the Act, any application for granting eviction for a special kind of landlord, shall be dealt with strictly in compliance with Section 25B – Hence difficult to hold that Rule 23 of the Rules can be applied in the instant case in view of the specific provisions provided in Section 25B of the Rent Act- That apart, Rule 23 does not specifically confer any power on the Controller to follow the provisions of the Code in special classes of landlords – It is a general rule, by which the Controller in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code – High Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of eviction and in allowing the affidavit filed by the tenant for the purpose of defending the proceedings for eviction – High Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application for setting aside the order of eviction and restored the application for leave to contest the eviction proceeding when such power, was not conferred on the Rent Controller to entertain such an application filed by the tenant/respondent – Apart from that it was difficult to understand how an application for leave to contest having been rejected, may be on the ground of delay, could be allowed when it was not disputed by the tenant respondent that no application for condonation of delay could be entertained by the Rent Controller as the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be attracted – Order of eviction passed by Additional Rent Controller restored – Impugned order of High Court as well as the order of the Additional Rent Controller, set aside – Application filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act allowed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 23 to 35)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present Appeal has been filed against Judgment and order passed by High Court whereby High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant and upheld the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that he is conferred with power to set aside an ex-parte order for eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of Cpc was thereby affirmed by the High Court in appeal.
       Findings of the Court :
        Section 25B. itself is a special code and therefore, Rent Controller, while dealing with an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to follow strictly in compliance with Section 25B of the Act. Hence , after insertion of Section 25B of the Act, any application for granting eviction for a special kind of landlord, shall be dealt with strictly in compliance with Section 25B . Held difficult to hold that Rule 23 of the Rules can be applied in the instant case in view of the specific provisions provided in Section 25B of the Rent Act. That apart, Rule 23 does not specifically confer any power on the Controller to follow the provisions of the Code in special classes of landlords. It is a general rule, by which the Controller in deciding any question relating to procedure not specifically provided by the Act and these rules shall, as far as possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code. High Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of eviction and in allowing the affidavit filed by the tenant for the purpose of defending the proceedings for eviction. High Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application for setting aside the order of eviction and restored the application for leave to contest the eviction proceeding when such power, was not conferred on the Rent Controller to entertain such an application filed by the tenant/respondent.Apart from that it was difficult to understand how an application for leave to contest having been rejected, may be on the ground of delay, could be allowed when it was not disputed by the tenant respondent that no application for condonation of delay could be entertained by the Rent Controller as the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be attracted. Order of eviction passed by Additional Rent Controller was restored. Impugned order of High Court as well as the order of the Additional Rent Controller, was set aside .Application filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act was allowed. Appeal was allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal arising out of a Judgment and order dated 30th of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. No. 65 of 2002, whereby the High Court had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant and upheld the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that he is conferred with power to set aside an ex-parte order for eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “the Code”) was thereby affirmed by the High Court in appeal.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated as follows in a nutshell :-

The landlord/appellant filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short “the Rent Act”) before the Rent Controller, Delhi for eviction of the Tenant/Respondent from No. 1-C/46, Ramesh Nagar, Namdhari Colony, New Delhi (in short “the tenanted premises”). After filing of the eviction proceeding, summons was issued in compliance with Section 25(3) (a) of the Rent Act to the tenant/respondent to appear before the Rent Controller on a specified date for the purpose of defending the eviction proceeding. The tenant/respondent filed an affidavit by way of an application praying for leave to defend the eviction proceeding after delay of 8 days from the date of service of notice upon him. By an order dated 28th of February, 2001, the Affidavit (the application for leave to defend) was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller as it was filed 8 days beyond the date . . mentioned in the summons. Since there was a delay of 8 days, Additional Rent Controller held that .under the Rent Act, he was not conferred with any power to condone the delay in filing such affidavit. Since the prayer for leave to defend the proceeding was rejected as a follow up action, an eviction order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in favour of the landlord/appellant. on 28th of February, 2001 in compliance with sub-section (4) of Section 25 8 of the Rent Act.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant/respondent filed an application for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 28th of February, 2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code and also prayed for leave to defend the eviction proceeding after condoning the delay in filing the same by an order dated 7th of December, 2001, the application for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction passed on 28th of February, 2001 was allowed and the eviction proceeding was restored to its original file by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller, by the aforesaid order, also allowed the prayer of the tenant/respondent by granting leave to contest the eviction proceeding in compliance with ··Section 25(8)( 4) of the Rent Act.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, the Landlord/Appellant filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, which came to be registered as CM No.65/2002, before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant holding that there was no patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court in setting aside order of eviction thereby restoring the affidavit filed by the tenant/respondent for leave to contest the eviction proceeding. However, the High Court observed in the impugned Judgment that the Additional Rent Controller may not have power to condone the delay in seeking leave to defend, but once the eviction decree was passed, the Add!. Rent Controller can set aside an order of eviction and restore the prayer for leave to defend the eviction proceeding by resorting to Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1856

2009(8) Supreme SUPREME COURT OF INDIATarun Chatterjee, and R.M. Lodha, JJ. Prithipal Singh — Appellant versusSatpal Singh (dead) through its LRs. — Respondents Civil Appeal No. 8501 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19921 of 2006) Decided on : 18-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT Section 25B itself is a special code and therefore, Rent Controller, while dealing with an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to follow strictly in compliance with Section 25B of the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

2009(8) Supreme
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee, and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Prithipal Singh — Appellant
versus
Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8501 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19921 of 2006)
Decided on : 18-12-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 25B itself is a special code and therefore, Rent Controller, while dealing with an application for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to follow strictly in compliance with Section 25B of the Act.