Back
1993 Supreme(Del) 106
High Court Of Delhi
R.DAVID - Appellant
Versus
KANTA RANI - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 347 of 1987
Decided On : 02/22/1993
D.N.GOBURDHAN, H.C.Sukhija
An eviction order passed on the basis of an admission regarding bona fide requirement of a landlord who was already dead at the time of the admission is a nullity.
Headnote:
EVICTION - SECTION 14(1)(C) - SECTION 21 - NULLITY - JURISDICTIONAL ERROR - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - ADMISSION - DEATH OF LANDLORD - JURISDICTIONAL FACT - SATISFACTION OF RENT CONTROL AUTHORITIES - SOLEMN UNDERTAKING - WITHDRAWAL OF GROUND OF NON-PAYMENT OF RENT - RESTORATION OF GROUND - REVIVAL OF APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS - JURISDICTION OF RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL - ERROR OF JURISDICTIONAL FACT - RENDERS ORDER ULTRA VIRES AND BAD - JURISDICTIONAL FACT IS ONE ON EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF WHICH DEPENDS ASSUMPTION OR REFUSAL TO ASSUME JURISDICTION BY A COURT OR A TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant admitted bona fide requirement of landlord for eviction on ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, at the time of admission, the landlord was already dead. The Rent Control Tribunal passed an eviction order based on the admission. The tenant challenged the order, arguing that it was a nullity since the landlord was dead at the time of the admission.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the eviction order was a nullity since the satisfaction reached by the Rent Control Tribunal regarding the existence of the ground of bona fide requirement stood vitiated as Mustaq Ram was already dead when the said order was made. This is a jurisdictional error appearing in the order of the Rent Control Tribunal which makes the order of the Rent Control Tribunal as nullity.
Issues: Whether the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal was a nullity since the landlord was dead at the time of the admission of bona fide requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles: * An eviction order passed on an award without any thing more was nullity as the authorities under the Rent Act have no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction unless the Rent Control authorities are satisfied on material available on the record regarding the existence of one or other ground of eviction mentioned in the Rent Act. * A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends assumption or refusal to assume jurisdiction by a Court or a Tribunal. * Error of jurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad. * A Court or tribunal cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves by deciding the jurisdictional fact wrongly.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order as well as the eviction order, and directed that the appeal and the cross-objections, which were filed before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order of the additional Rent Controller, stand revived on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against order of the Rentcontrol Tribunal dated 10/07/1987, by which he dismissed the applicationof the tenant-appellant seeking setting aside of the eviction order dated 25/05/1983, made in Rent Control Appeal No. 109/83 by the Rent Controltribunal.
( 2 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that Mustaq Ram-petitioner No. 2 (since deceased) was the owner of Property No. 34, Krishna Market, Lajpatnagar-1, New Delhi and the property was being managed by his marrieddaughter Smt. Kanta Rani. Smt. K. anta Rani had let out the premises inquestion comprising of one room, verandah, temporary store, bath and W. C. located on the rear portion of the said property to the appellant-R. David ona monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00per month vide rent note dated 14/11/1967. The eviction petition was brought by Smt. Kanta Rani and Mustaqram against the tenant on the grounds of eviction covered by Clauses (a) and (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Actpleading that in an earliar case for eviction brought by Smt. Kanta Raniagainst the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent, the tenant had beengiven the benefit of Section 14 (2) but the tenant has again neither paid nortendered the arrears of rent of the period 1/08/1977, onwards despiteservice of notice of demand dated 19/12/1977 and as he has been inarrears for more than three months consecutively, thus he was not entitled tohave benefit of Section 14 (2) again. In respect of the ground of bona fiderequirement, it was pleaded that Mustaq Ram-petitioner No. 2, being theowner of the property in question, for whose benefit the property was beingheld, had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi andthus, he bona fide requires the demised premises for occupation as residencefor himself and members of his family as he intended to shift to Delhi andsettle in his own house.
( 3 ) THE eviction petition was contested by the tenant. Vide judgmentdated January 22, 1983, the Additional Rent Controller had passed theeviction order on the ground of non-payment of rent but the ground ofbona fide requirement was negatived holding that Mustaq Ram had not beenable to satisfy the Court regarding his intention to shift to Delhi. Mustaqram was based in Hoshiarpur District at all relevant times.
( 4 ) THE appeal was brought by the tenant against the eviction orderbefore the Rent Control Tribunal. On 25/05/1983, the tenant-appellantmade a statement admitting that the premises had been let out to him forresidential purposes and the same are bona fide required by Mustaq Ramand his family for their own residence and they have no alternate accommodation and he gave a solemn undertaking to the Court that he shall vacatethe premises within two years. Counsel for the landlords made a statementthat he had no objection to grant of two years time and he withdrew theground of eviction of non-payment of rent. The Rent Control Tribunalvide his judgment dated 25/05/1983, passed the eviction order on theadmission made by the tenant appellant on the ground of eviction covered byclause (e) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 i. e. ground of bona fiderequirement of Mustaq Ram and his family, and granted two years time forvacating the premises.
( 5 ) IT is admitted case now that at the time the aforesaid statementwas made by the tenant, Mustaq Ram was already dead. The tenant movedthe petition before the Rent Control Tribunal praying for setting aside of theorder of eviction as Mustaq Ram was already dead when he made theadmission regarding bona fide need of Mustaq Ram and thus, the order wasa nullity.
( 6 ) THE short question which now arises for consideration is whetherthe said order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal could be deemed to benullity or not ?
( 7 ) FROM the record it is clear that Mustaq Ram had set up his needof shifting to Delhi and residing in his own house mentioning that he wouldstart his own business in
