( 1 ) IMPORTANT question which arises in this writ petition is with regard to the interpretation and the validity of some of the provisions which have been newly added to Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as a result of the amendment, by Act 57 of 1988.

( 2 ) THE petitioner became a tenant of respondent No. 3, on 1-5-1977 in respect of residential flat owned by the said respondent No. 3. On 15-7-1987 the respondent No. 3 filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 3 required the said premises for his own use and for use of the persons dependant upon him. After the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25b of the Rent Control Act was filed the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for leave to contest the petition. On 26-5-1988 respondent No. 3 conceded the said application and leave to contest was granted.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 is employed in the Northern Railway and is a Government servant. The Parliament passed the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act 1988 seeking to incorporate certain important provisions in the Rent Control Act. According to the statement of Objects and Reasons the amendment was brought out for the following reasons :-

(A) To rationalise the present Rent Control Law by bringing about a balance between the interests of landlords and tenants;

(B) To give a boost to house building activity and maintain the existing houses in stock in a reasonable state of repairs; and

(C) To reduce litigation between the landlords and tenants and to ensure expeditious disposal of disputes between them.

ONE of the provisions which was inserted was Section 14-C which sought to give a right to recover immediate possession of premises to Central Government and Delhi, Administration Employees. Respondent No. 3, after the enactment of the said provision, withdrew the original eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter the. present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with 14-C and 25-B of the Act was. filed. On 3-4-1989 affidavit was filed by the petitioner seeking leave to contest the petition. After the respondent No. 3 had filed a reply to the same, the Controller did not grant leave as prayed for and on 4-7-1989 an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. It may here be stated that in the present application for eviction it was categorically stated by respondent No. 3 that he was a central Government employee and he was due to retire on 31-12-1989, on his attaining the age of superannuation. It was also mentioned that respondent No. 3 would have to surrender the Railway accommodation which had been allotted to him and therefore, the premises in question were required for his residence, he being a landlord of thole premises.

( 4 ) THE petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition in which it has been inter alia contended that the provisions of Section 14-C are ultra-vires and unconstitutional. It is also prayed that the eviction order which was passed in Eviction Petition No. E-52/1989 by the Rent Controller on 4-7-1989 should also be quashed.

( 5 ) RULE Nisi was issued and considering the importance of the case the petition was set down for early bearing As this was a new piece of legislation affecting a large number of litigants in Delhi and as the decision in this case would affect a number of litigants we permitted all counsel, who so desired, to address arguments in the case. We would take this opportunity to express our appreciation of the assistance which we have received from the members of Bar in helping to understand and interpret the impugned provisions.

( 6 ) THE two main contentions which have been raised by Shri Chandiok and other counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants are that on a correct interpretation of the Act the summary procedure provided by Section 25-B cannot,be availed of in a petition filed under Section 14-B, 14-C, or 14-D. It is further submitted