KANTA GOEL Vs. B P PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So heartening to the judges bosom is the happy ending of a bitterly fought litigation where the law is declared by the Court and justice is accomplished by the parties settling the differences, assisted by activist judicial suggestions and promoted by constructive counselling by advocates. Such is the pleasing culmination of this case which relates to an ejectment proceeding under S. 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958). The Controller directed eviction, refusing leave to the tenant to contest the application for eviction. The High Court, in the revision filed by the tenant, went into an elaborate discussion on many matters but somehow missed a plea fatal to the landlord's claim and affirmed the relief of eviction although on different grounds,. The aggrieved tenant sought special leave to appeal which was granted and, thanks to the landlord appearing by caveat even at the preliminary hearing, leave was granted and the appeal itself was heard the very next day. Thus at the Supreme Court level quick justice has been meted out and fortunately our judgment has resulted in a re-adjustment between the parties and, hopefully, the healing of the wounds of litigation. A protracted forensic proceeding makes foes of friends, but a settlement of the dispute in accordance with law and justice makes friends of foes.

(2.) Some facts need to be narrated for getting the hang of the case and the issues of law raised. The respondent is an Under Secretary to Government in the Housing Ministry. He was in occupation of residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government and was required by government order to vacate such residential accommodation on the ground that he owned in Delhi a residential accommodation in his own name. The building we are concerned with is 23/6, Shakti Nagar. It is a two-storyed houses but the litigation centres round part of the first-floor. The whole building belonged to one Pandit Saraswati Dass who let out a portion of the first floor consisting of 4 rooms and a small enclosure somewhere in August 1968 to the appellant. Shri Das died in 1972 leaving behind the 1st respondent, two other sons (respondents 2 and 3) and a daughter (respondent 4). It may be stated even here that the proceeding before the Controller was started by the 1st respondent and an objection was raised by the appellant that the other heirs of the late Das were necessary parties they were not impleaded at this stage although the Controller ordered eviction overruling the objection. The High Court however, impleaded the other two sons and the only daughter respondents 2 to 4) and taking the view, that their presence was necessary for the maintainability of the action, the learned Judge decreed eviction.

(3.) A crucial objection, lethal to the case of the landlord, considered by the Controller but negatived by him, was raised in the revision petition but was not adverted to or adjudicated upon by the High Court. Before us Shri Nariman has pressed it again and the fate of this case, so far as we are concerned, rests on the validity of that point. The landlord-1st respondent, after receiving the order from government to vacate, as contemplated in S. 14A of the Act, applied for eviction of another tenant who was occupying a three-room tenement on the first floor of the same building. In fact, the first floor of the house consists of two dwelling apartments as it were, one consisting of three rooms and the other of 4 rooms. By definition, premises means any part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence ..... In the present case the three room tenement being part of a building and let separately to a tenant, fell within the definition of premises. Admittedly, the landlord exercised his right under S.14 A to recover immediately possession of those premises. He succeeded, secured possession and kept it vacant. Even at the present time those premises which are adjacent to the suit premises are in his vacant possession. Shri Nariman's argument is that while it is open to a landlord who is a government servant directed to vacate allotted premises, and clothed with a new right to recover possession of any premises let out by him, to exercise it once, he cannot repeat the exercise ad libitem and go on evicting every tenant of his by using the weapon of S. 14A. He relies on the proviso to S. 14A (1) to reinforce his submission and we will deal with it presently.