Back
1976 Supreme(Del) 110
High Court Of Delhi
OM PARKASH GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
RAM NATH GUPTA - Respondent
Civil 280 of 1976
Decided On : 08/03/1976
G.N.AGGARWAL, SULTAN SINGH
Section 14a (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not subject to the other provisions of the Act or of any contract between the parties or of any other laws such as the Transfer of Property Act or the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - RIGHT TO RECOVER IMMEDIATE POSSESSION - LANDLORD ALLOTTED GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION ASKED TO VACATE - OWNERSHIP OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION - SECTION 14A(1) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE - CONSTRUCTION - SCOPE - WHETHER SECTION 14A(1) IS SUBJECT TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR ANY OTHER LAW - WHETHER SECTION 14A(1) IS IN SUPERSESSION OR IN SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT OR THE SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 - MEANING OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION - MEANING OF SECTION 25B(5) - SCOPE OF REVISION UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 25B(8).
Fact of the Case:
The respondent landlord made an application under section 14a (1) for the eviction of the petitioner tenant. According to the procedure for the disposal of such application laid down in section 25b, the tenant filed an affidavit under sub-section (4) of section 25b to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the said application of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that section 14a (1) is not subject to the other provisions of the Act or of any contract between the parties or of any other laws such as the Transfer of Property Act or the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. The Court further held that the landlord was not occupying at all the Government accommodation which he has been asked to vacate. The Court also held that the Controller has purported to assess the comparative weight of the documentary evidence produced by the landlord and the tenant and reached a conclusion in favour of the landlord. The Court held that such a course is not permissible to the Controller. The Court held that the stage for the assessment of evidence was not reached. The Court held that the decision of the Controller had to be made on the pleadings and the admitted documents only.
Issues: 1. Whether section 14a (1) is subject to the other provisions of the Act or any other law? 2. Whether section 14a (1) is in supersession or in supplementation of the Transfer of Property Act or the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956? 3. Meaning of residential accommodation? 4. Meaning of section 25b(5)? 5. Scope of revision under the proviso to section 25b(8)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14a (1) is not subject to the other provisions of the Act or of any contract between the parties or of any other laws such as the Transfer of Property Act or the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 2. Section 14a (1) is in supersession and not in supplementation of the Transfer of Property Act and the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 3. The phrase "a residential accommodation" means that the accommodation should be capable of being used as a residence or should have been built as a residence. 4. The disclosure of facts in an affidavit must raise a triable issue. 5. The ambit of the proviso to sub-section (8) is similar to that of section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 or to the first proviso to section 75 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act 1920.
Final Decision: The order of the Controller is, therefore, set aside. Leave is granted to the defendant to defend the petition filed by the landlord only on the ground set forth by the learned counsel for the tenant in the fourth contention set out above. The case is remanded to the Controller for consideration only of this contention of the tenant, namely, that the landlord did not actually occupy the residential accommodation which he was asked to vacate by the Government.
( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred under the proviso to sub-section (8) of section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended in 1976. The power of this Court is to be exercised within the ambit of the said provision which is as below :
"provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controllerunder this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. "
SECTION 25b lays down the procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction of a tenant made by a landlord on either of two grounds, namely :
(A) under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, or (b) under section 14a introduced in the Act by the amendment of 1976.
THE principal part of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 14a would have to he carefully construed in disposing of this revision petition. It is, therefore. reproduced below:
"right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to certain persons. (1) Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority is required, by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by that Government or authority lo vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), customs or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him. "
( 2 ) THE respondent landlord made an application under section 14a (1) for the eviction of the petitioner tenant. According to the procedure for the disposal of such application laid down in section 25b, the tenant filed an affidavit under sub-section (4) of section 25b to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the said application of the landlord. Sub-section (5) which governs the discretion of the Controller in granting such leave is as follows.
"the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14a. "
( 3 ) THE leave to defend was sought by the tenant on curtain grounds which were negatived by the Controller in refusing to grant the leave to defend. The Controller ordered the tenant to deliver possession of the premises of the landlord occupied by him to the landlord under section 14a (1 ). Hence the present revision by the tenant against the order of the Controller.
( 4 ) SHRI Gopal Narain for the petitioner tenant confined his attack on the Controller s order before me only to the following for grounds. He contended that leave to defend ought to have been granted to him by the Controller in view of the following facts disclosed in his application for leave to defend :
(1) The summary procedure laid down by section 25b applies lo an application by landlord tor eviction of a tenant made both under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 and under section 14a (1) of the Act. It is well established that an application under section 14 ( 1) (c) cannot be made unless the contractual tenancy is first terminated by a notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or under the equitable principles underlying it. The same condition precedent has to be fulfilled by the landlord before filing the application under section 14a (1 ). The tenan
