1959 Supreme(P&H) 82
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bishan Narain, J.
Krishna Aggarwal
Versus
Satya Dev
Civil Revision Case No. 426 of 1958,
Decided On : MAY 12, 1959
The proviso to Section 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which provides that the court shall have regard to the provisions of the new Act, is directory and not mandatory.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - TRANSFER OF PREMISES - LIMITATION ON LANDLORD'S RIGHTS UNDER NEW ACT - APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO TO SECTION 57(2) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord, Satya Dev, filed a suit for eviction of the tenant, Sri Krishan Aggarwal, from the premises known as 2 Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi, on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his residence and that he had no other suitable place for this purpose. The tenant pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the plaintiff did not bona fide require the premises for his residence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court held that the petitioner became the tenant of Satya Dev by operation of law and that the plaintiff was entitled to evict the tenant under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was a tenant of the landlord by operation of law? 2. Whether the landlord bona fide required the premises for his residence? 3. Whether the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which limits the landlord's right to evict a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement to cases where five years have elapsed from the date of acquisition, are applicable to the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenant became the tenant of the landlord by operation of law when the landlord's father gifted the premises to him. 2. The court held that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his residence as he was 24 years old and anxious to get married and there was no other suitable accommodation available to him. 3. The court held that the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, are not applicable to the present case as the suit was filed before the new Act came into force and the proviso to Section 57(2) of the new Act, which provides that the court shall have regard to the provisions of the new Act, is directory and not mandatory.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition and upheld the decree of eviction passed by the lower courts.
Bishan Narain, J.
1. The premises known as 2 Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi, belonged at One time to Lakhmi Chand. He let the same to Sri Krishan Aggarwal for purposes of residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 38/3/-. Lakhmi Chand gifted the promises to his son Satya Dev on 19th June, 1956, The donee filed the present suit for eviction of the tenant on 27th August, 1956 on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for his residence and that he had no other suitable place for this purpose. The tenant inter alia pleaded (i) that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and (2) that the plaintiff did not bona fide require the premises for his residence.
The trial court rejected both these defences but made the ejectment decree conditional on the filing of an affidavit that the plaintiffs marriage would take place within the next three months. The tenant appealed against the ejectment decree while the landlord filed cross-objections, to get the condition sot aside. The Additional Senior Sub-Judge Delhi dismissed the tenants appeal and accepted the cross-objections. The tenant has filed this revision petition under Section 35 of the Rent Control Act 1952 and has challenged the decision of the lower Court on both points.
2. Now Lakhmi Chand was possessed of family property and also acquired property. He has three sons. The family resided in a joint family house situated on Panchkuin Head, New Delhi. On 8th December, 1954 the joint family property was partitioned and this house at Panclikuin Koad fell to the share of Arjan Dev another son of Lakhmi Chand. In the partition deed the house in dispute was described as the acquired property of Lakhmi Chand and was not partitioned. The family however according to the tenants counsel continued residing in the Panchkuin Road house. On 19th of June, 1956 the house now in dispute was gifted to the plaintiff and the possession was duly delivered to him. In these circumstances the lower courts rightly held that the petitioner became the tenant of Satya Dev by operation of law.
3. Admittedly the Punchkuin Road house consists of three rooms and a Barsati. Arjan Dev has a wife and three minor children. His parents are also staying with him. There is therefore no accommodation for the plaintiff who is 24 years old in the Punchkuin Road house particularly when he is anxious to get married- It has been found that he has no other suitable accommodation for his residence. In these circumstances both the lower courts have held that the plaintiffs requirement is bona fide.
No cogent reason has been advanced before me for setting aside this finding of fact. I therefore hold that the plaintiff is entitled to evict the tenant under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
4. The learned Counsel then raised a new point which requires consideration. The Delhi Rent Control Act (No. 59) of 1958 came into force on 9th February, 1959 during the pendency 61 the present revision and after the suit and the appeal had been decided. Section 13 of the 1952 Act lays down the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted while 1958 Act deals with this subject in Section 14. Under Section 14(6) of the 1958 Act a landlord who acquires the premises by transfer cannot get a tenant evicted on the ground that he wanted bona fide the premises for his own or his familys residence unless five years have elapsed from the date of acquisition. This limitation on landlords rights did not exist in the 1952 Act. It is urged on behalf of the tenant that in the present case five years have not elapsed since acquisition and therefore Satya Dev is not entitled to a decree for eviction.
The learned counsel requested me to mould the decree so as to bring it in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 (6) of the 1958 Act and for this purpose relied on the first proviso to Section 57 (2) of the Act. Section 57 reads :-
- "57. Repeal and Savings. (1) The Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act