NARAIN KHAMMAN Vs. PARDUMAN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the revision petition under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'), filed by the Appellant against an order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Controller, Delhi, on an application filed by the Respondent on the ground specified in section 14A (1) of the Act.

(2.) The Appellant was the tenant of the Responedent in respect of premises situate at 3474, Gali Kartar Singh, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, consisting of one room and two tin sheds at a rent of Rs. 10.50 per month excluding water 'electricity and other charges. Prior to January 1975' the Respondent was an employee in the Posts and Telegraphs, Audit and Accounts Department of the Government of India, and in January 1975 he was sent on deputation to the Union Public Service Commission. He retired on May 1, 1978. During the course of his service, in October, 1972, the Respondent was allotted Government residential accommodation at Timarpur' Delhi, by the Directorate of Estates, Government of India. The Respondent occupied the said accommodation from November 1, 1972. By a general order issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing in the form of an office memorandum, namely, O. M. No. 12031 (1)/74-Pol. II dated September 9, 1975, and subsequently clarified by another order, namely. O. M. No. 12031 (1)/74-Pol. II dated December 12, 1975, the Government of India directed that all Government servants who had their own dwelling houses at the place of posting within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality should vacate the Government accommodation allotted to them within three months from October 1, 1975, or in default to pay market rent in respect thereof. Consequently the Respondent was required to vacate the Government accommodation allotted to him by December 31, 1975, or to pay the market rent in respect thereof with effect from January 1, 1976. The Respondent, therefore, vacated the Government accommodation in his occupation on December 27, 1975, and went to reside in other premises belonging to him adjoining the promises let to the Appellant. Thereafter, on May 17, 1976, the Respondent filed an application under section 25B of the Act on the ground specified in section 14A (1) thereof' being Suit No. E-798 of 1976. During the pendency of the said eviction application, by a special order dated December 24, 1975, but signed on September 25, 1976, the Respondent was given notice that if he failed to vacate the said Government accommodation in his occupation by December 31, 1975, he would be charged market rent with effect from January 1, 1976, at the rate fixed by the Government from time to time. After the summons had been duly served on him, the Appellant filed an affidavit stating the grounds on which he sought to contest the said eviction application and obtained leave from the Rent Controller' Delhi, to contest the said application. A number of defences were taken by the Appellant, all of which were negatived by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller considered the accommodation in the respective occupation of the parties and held that the Respondent's family consisted of himself, his wife, his married sons and their wives, eight grand-children and two married daughters with their children and that it could not be said that the premises occupied by the Respondent constituted reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The Rent Controller further held that section 14A (1) of the Act did not contain a condition that the Government servant who made an application under section 14A (1) should not be in possession of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation as was the case under clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act and that even if such a factor were to be taken into consideration, it could not be said that the Respondent was in occupation of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Accordingly, on August 1, 1981, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the Appellant and directed it not to be executed for a period of two months. The Rent Controller directed the parties to bear their own costs of the said eviction application.

(3.) The Appellant thereupon filed in the High Court of Delhi a revision petition under S. 25-B(8) of the Act. The said revision petition was dismissed on November 24, 1981. It is against this judgment and order of the Delhi High Court that the present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed by the Appellant.