Back
1976 Supreme(Del) 166
High Court Of Delhi
TILAK RAM - Appellant
Versus
MAYA DEVI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 596 of 1976
Decided On : 11/11/1976
K.L.Sethi, R.S.Chaudhary
The right to recover possession under Section 14a(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is available only to a landlord who is an allottee of government quarters and is required to vacate them due to owning a residential accommodation in Delhi.
Headnote:
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14A(1) - LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION - CONDITIONS - APPLICABILITY TO LANDLORD WHOSE SPOUSE IS ALLOTTED GOVERNMENT QUARTERS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-landlord filed an eviction application under Section 14a(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming possession of the premises from the petitioner-tenant on the ground that her husband was allotted government quarters and was required to vacate them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent-landlord was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14a(1) as she was not the allottee of the government quarters and was not required to vacate them.
Issues: Whether the respondent-landlord was a "landlord" within the meaning of Section 14a(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 14a(1) and held that the landlord contemplated by the section must be a person in occupation of residential premises allotted to him/her by the Central Government or local authority and required to vacate such premises or incur certain obligations due to owning a residential accommodation in Delhi.
Final Decision: The court accepted the revision petition and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for determining whether leave should be granted to the petitioner to defend the eviction petition on the grounds contained in proviso (e) to Section 14(1) of the Act.
( 1 ) (ORAL ). This is a petition filed by the tenant against the order dated 30th July, 1976 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking permission to contest the application for leave to defend the eviction application and deeming the allegations made in the application to be correct and passing order of eviction of the petitioner under Section 14a (1) of Act 18 of 1976 in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE respondent Maya Devi filed the application before the Rent Controller, Delhi, for an order for recovery of possession against the petitioner under section 14a (1) read with Sections 14 (l) (e) and 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended.
( 3 ) IN the eviction application, it was averred by the respondentlandlord that petitioner Tilak Ram was the tenant and that she is the owner of the premises. The premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes. It was further averred that the husband of the respondent was allotted government quarter No. 484, Sector No. 9, R. K. Puram, New Delhi where they were residing, which was allotted to him by the Central Government, and it is now required by the Government vide order dated 27th December, 1975 to vacate the said quarter or in default to incur certain obligations, that is, to pay rent at the market rate which is too much and the respondent and her husband cannot afford to pay. Hence the said quarter has to be vacated. The premises is, therefore, required bona fide by the respondent for her residence and the residence of her family members, dependent upon her. She has no other residential accommodation for her residence- It will thus be noted that the application for eviction was filed by the respondent both under Section 14a (1) and on the grounds contained in proviso (e) to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended.
( 4 ) THE present petitioner-tenant filed an application for leave to defend the petitioner and it was inter alia contended that he is entitled to leave to defepd the petition. The Rent Controller has passed an order for eviction under section 14a (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended. . :no order for eviction has been passed under proviso (e) to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It is the allegations made in the eviction petition for the purpose of section 14a (1) that were deemed to be correct and on that eviction order has been passed. Section 14a (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended, reads as under:-
"14a. (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, to 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 conatined elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring a right on a landlord owning, in the Union territory of Delhi, two or more dwelling houses, whether in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child, to recover the possession of more than one dwelling house and it shall be lawful for such landlord to indicate the dwelling house, possession of which he intends to recover. "
( 5 ) WHO is the landlord who is entitled to the benefit as given in Section 14a (1)? The question is of the meaning of the words ". . . . . . . . there shall accrue, on and from the date of s
