NIHAL CHAND Vs. KALYAN CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated Dec. 6, 1976 of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appellant-landlord"s application for eviction under Sec. 14A (1) read with S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, which provisions were inserted therein by Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (No. 24 of 1975) subsequently replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1976.

(2.) The appellant-landlord being a Government servant was at the material time in occupation of a residential accommodation bearing No. B-11/791, situated at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, the same having been allotted to him by the Central Government. It appears that he owns a two and a half storied residential house bearing No. F-43, Green Park, New Delhi, in his own name. In 1968 the appellant-landlord let out the first floor of his said house to the respondent for residential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was later on increased to Rs. 400/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water charges. By a general order dated Sept. 9, 1975, the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, Directorate of Estates, took a decision, in supersession of all previous orders on the subject, that Government servants who have or own houses at the place of their posting, within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality, should be required to vacate Government accommodation allotted to them, within three months from the 1st of October, 1975 and that in default of their vacating Government accommodation by December 31, 1975, they should be charged enhanced licence fee at the market rates. Pursuant to this decision, by a general order dated September 30, 1975, issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, all officers and members of the staff who owned houses in their own names or in the names of their families and were occupying Government accommodation were called upon to vacate the Government accommodation within three months with effect from October 1, 1975, failing which they were informed that they which would be charged market rent after such date. Copies of this order were circulated to all Offices and Branches at Headquarters and all outstation offices for information and in particular a copy was also forwarded to the appellant-landlord who happened to be the Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Office, Dept. of Supply, Government of India. In view of this order dated September 30, 1975, the appellant-landlord on December 19, 1975 filed an application under Section 14A (1) read with Sec. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (No. 24 of 1975) for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the first floor of house No. F-43, Green Park, New Delhi, on the ground that he had been asked to vacate the Government accommodation on account of his owning a house in the Union Territory of Delhi and had incurred an obligation to pay penal licence fee in default. In response to the summons served upon him in accordance with the Third Schedule under Sec. 25B (2) of the said Ordinance the respondent-tenant filed on January 16, 1976 an application supported by a detailed affidavit, seeking leave to contest and defend the case on several grounds. First, it was contended that the summary procedure provided under Section 25B was available not for an application filed under Sec. 14A (1) but only for an application seeking eviction on ground of personal bona fide requirement under S. 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Secondly, it was contended that even otherwise since according to the landlord"s own showing he had retired from Government service on November 30, 1975 and was, therefore liable to vacate the Government accommodation, the application under S. 14A (1) was not maintainable:in other words, Section 14A (1) was not meant for a retired Government servant or a Government servant who was transferred outside Delhi. Thirdly, it was contended that the application seeking his eviction was not filed bona fide inasmuch as the appellant-landlord had earlier filed an application No. 497 of 1975 seeking respondent"s eviction from the premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under S. 14 (1) (e) which had been dismissed by the Additional rent Controller on Dec. 17, 1975 inasmuch as his requirement could not be considered to be bona fide. Fourthly, it was contended that the application for eviction was wholly mala fide because the premises were let out initially at a rent of Rs. 300/- per month which was increased to Rs. 350/- per month with effect from October 1, 1971 and thereafter it was further increased to Rs. 400/- per month and further because when the ground-floor premises of the house in question had fallen vacant on two occasions prior to the filing of the application, the landlord instead of himself occupying the said premises, had let out the same at higher rents. The appellant-landlord refuted these contentions and explained the circumstances why he had let out portions of his house after these had fallen vacant during the pendency of his earlier eviction-application and prior to his filing the instant application. By his order dated August 11, 1976, Shri R.K.Sain, Rent Controller, Delhi, negatived all the contentions that were urged by the respondent-tenant, rejected his prayer for granting leave to contest and defend the proceedings and passed an order for eviction against him, under Section 14A of the Act directing the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to the appellant-landlord within two months from the date of the order. The Rent Controller took the view that the summary procedure under S. 25B had been made applicable to applications under Sec. 14A when Ordinance No. 24 of 1975 was replaced by Amending Act 18 of 1975 with retrospective effect, that Section 14A (1) was available to the appellant-landlord notwithstanding his retirement from service on November 30, 1975 inasmuch as the documents on record clearly showed that he had been called upon to vacate the Government accommodation not because of his retirement but on the ground of his owning a house in the Union Territory of Delhi and that the cause of action accrued to him on September 30, 1975 when he was served with the general order of that date. He also took the view that the dismissal of the earlier petition under Section 14 (1) (e) had no bearing on the instant application for eviction because the instant application was based on a different cause of action requiring different set of facts to be proved which the appellant-landlord had proved in the case and according to him further the circumstances put forward by appellant-landlord explaining why he had let out portions of the house in question prior to the coming into force of the Ordinance and prior to this filing the instant application had no bearing on the issue involved in the case. Since according to him the appellant-landlord had satisfied or fulfilled all the conditions of S. 14A and since the respondent-tenant had not made out any case for the grant of leave to contest the proceedings, the Rent Controller refused leave to contest the case to the respondent and passed the eviction order in favour of the appellant-landlord.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the Rent Controller"s order the respondent-tenant preferred a Revisional Application (C.R.A. 562 of 1976) to the Delhi High Court. This revisional application was heard along with a group of other similar revisional applications and all these were disposed of by a common judgment by the High Court on December 6, 1976 since they raised certain common questions, particularly the question as to the circumstances in which leave should be granted to a tenant under sub-s. (5) of S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1950 as amended by Act 18 of 1976. So far as the respondent"s revisional application was concerned, the only contention urged on his behalf and which found favour with the High Court was that Sec. 14A (1) would not be available to a landlord who was an allottee of the Government accommodation and whose allotment was liable to be cancelled by virtue of his retirement from service or transfer outside Delhi. The High Court pointed out that the provision of S. 14A (1) as also the summary procedure provided under Section 25B of the Act were extraordinary provisions intended to ensure expeditious eviction of tenants who were in occupation of residential accommodation owned by such allottees of Government accommodation who were required to vacate by virtue of ownership of such accommodation, that these provisions were intended to deal with hard cases and that no landlord should be permitted to take undue advantage thereof if he was required to vacate Government accommodation by virtue of his retirement or transfer. On the facts of the case, the High Court took the view that the appellant was not entitled to invoke the provision of Sec. 14A (1) of the Act inasmuch as even before the application for eviction was filed he had already retired from service and was on that account liable to vacate the Government accommodation. In this view of the matter, the High Court allowed the revisional application, set aside the Rent Controller"s order and dismissed the application for eviction filed by the appellant-landlord, leaving the parties to bear the respective costs throughout. It is this order passed by the High Court on December 6, 1976 that has been challenged by the appellant-landlord before us.