Back
High Court Of Delhi
P.P.KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 2686 of 1989
Decided On : 05/08/1990
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14-D - VALIDITY AND INTERPRETATION - RIGHT TO RECOVER IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF PREMISES TO ACCRUE TO A WIDOW - CONDITIONS - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY TO APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 14-D - DIRECTIONS TO RENT CONTROLLERS AND ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLERS TO ENSURE SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF EVICTION PETITIONS - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED DURING STRIKE PERIODS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the validity and interpretation of Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which granted a widow the right to recover immediate possession of premises let out by her or her husband for her own residence. The petitioner contended that the provision was ultra vires, vague, and violated the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the petitioner raised issues related to the applicability of the provision, the requirement of bona fide need, the scope of the term 'required by her for her own residence,' and the applicability of the principles of res judicata to applications under Section 14-D.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the validity of Section 14-D, finding it to be a reasonable classification with an intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The court interpreted the provision, holding that it applied only to cases where the premises were let out by the widow's husband when he was alive, that the requirement of 'required by her for her own residence' meant that the premises were needed by the widow for her own use and not necessarily for her exclusive occupation, and that the principles of res judicata would apply to applications under Section 14-D to the extent that they overlapped with Section 14(1)(e). The court also issued directions to Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers to ensure speedy disposal of eviction petitions, including accepting written arguments and requiring parties to be present in person during strike periods.
Issues: 1. Validity of Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 2. Interpretation of Section 14-D 3. Applicability of the principles of res judicata to applications under Section 14-D 4. Directions to Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers to ensure speedy disposal of eviction petitions
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is a valid provision that does not violate the principles of natural justice or the right to equality. 2. Section 14-D applies only to cases where the premises were let out by the widow's husband when he was alive. 3. The requirement of 'required by her for her own residence' in Section 14-D means that the premises are needed by the widow for her own use and not necessarily for her exclusive occupation. 4. The principles of res judicata apply to applications under Section 14-D to the extent that they overlap with Section 14(1)(e). 5. Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers should take steps to ensure speedy disposal of eviction petitions, including accepting written arguments and requiring parties to be present in person during strike periods.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and issued a writ of mandamus directing him to decide the petitioner's application for leave to defend de novo within six months from the date of the judgment, in light of the observations made in the judgment. The court also issued directions to Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers to ensure speedy disposal of eviction petitions.
( 1 ) AFTER the promulgation of Delhi Rentcontrol (Amendment) Act, 1988 whereby some provisions wereincorporated into the Delhi Rent Control Act, this is the second round of litigation which has come up before this Bench. In an earlier case of Shri B. M. Chanana Vs. Union of Indiaand Others; 1989 (4) Delhi Lawyer 246, (1) we had decided thevalidity of Sections 14-B, 14-C and 14-D as well as interpretedsection 14-C of the Act. The present bunch of writ petitionswhich ha? come up for hearing before us again pertains to thesame provisions.
( 2 ) THE present writ petition deals with the vires and the interpretation of Section 14-D of the Act. As there were a numberof writ petitions pending in this court and in view of the factthat a lerge number of litigants were likely to be affected wepermitted various counsels who so desired, to appear and addressarguments on all facts with regard to the interpretation and validity of the said provisions.
( 3 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating various issues which areinvolved with regard to the interpretation of Section 14-D ofthe Act it is necessary to, by way of illustration, refer to the factsof the prevent writ petition.
( 4 ) THE peitioner is the tenant in respect of a residentialhouse of which respondent No. 3 is the landlady The premi-ses in question at Delhi, which were tenanted to the petitioner,were let out to hiir. by the landlady s husband on 11-2-1976. According to the averments made in the writ petition the husband of respondent No. 3 died on 24-7-1977 and thereafter therespondent No. 3 became the landlady. It is contended thatthe landlady has been residing at Jaipur alongwith her husband and, now, with her son. It appears that respondent No. 3had filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, before the Additionalrent Controller, Delhi. The ground for filing tile eviction petition was that the landlady wanted to shift to Delhi from Jaipur. Vide order dated 5-5-1987 the Additional Rent Controllerdismissed the eviction petition inter alia holding that the landlady was permanently settled at Jaipur where she owns her ownhouse and that her contention that she wanted to live in thesuit premises was not true and the intention of the landlady appeared to be only to enhance the rate of rent. No appeal againstthe said dismissal of the eviction petition is stated to have beenfiled.
( 5 ) AFTER the promulgation of the Amendment Act the landlady filed a fresh petition under Section-14d read with Section25-Q of Delhi Rent Control Act. In this petition it was interalia stated that the premises in question had been let out tothe petitioner herein for residential purposes and that her husband had expired on 24-7-1977 and the widow required thetenanted permises for her own residence and she wanted tolive in Delhi and she had no other house in Delhi.
( 6 ) AFTER the summons were issued an application was filedby the petitioner herein praying for leave to defend the eviction petition. It was inter alia contended that the land ladywanted to increase the rent, secondly she did not bonafiderequire the premises in question. It was also submitted that thepremises in question were let for residential-cum-commercialpurpose and. therefore, the petition under Section 14-D was notmaintainable.
( 7 ) THE Additional Rent Controller vide his order dated25-8-1989 came to the conclusion that no triable issue had beenraised by the petitioner. He was of the view that it was notnecessary to consider whether the premises were bonafide required by the landlady or not because Section 14-D did notuse the word bonafide . With regard to the dismissal of theearlier petition the Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the two provisions i. e. Section 14 (l) (e) and Sec. tion 14-D were separate and gave rise to independent causesof action and therefore the dismissal of the earlier applicationunder Section 14 (1 ) (e) was not relevant. He
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
