BISHAMBER NATH Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shop 'no. 1044 Sita Ram Bazar,Delhi owned by Shri Bhola Nath was let out to one Shri Ram Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 9.00 . The said Shri Ram Lal died in the year 1964 and on 21-11-64 his widow, Smt. Anar Devi, Ms son Mahinder Kumar, daughters Kanti Devi, Shakuntala Devi, Laxmi Kant, son-in-law and two minor sons of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, namely Shri Pawan and Sbri Pappu made part payments of the rent and become tenants. On 6 10-1965 the widow Smt. Anar Devi died. On 2-8-1968 Shri Bholla Dutt terminated the tenancy by way of a notice dated 2-8-1968 and on 15-11-1968 served anotice of demand for arrears of rent on the tenants. On 13-2-1969 Shri Bhola Nath made a will creating a private Trust in favour of the present appellants.

(2.) Since the shop in question is in the walled city of Delhi it was necessary to obtain permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before filing an eviction petition. The appellants, therefore, filed an application under Section 19 of the Act before the Competent Authority, During the pendency of the proceedings before the Competent Authority, Shri Bhola Nath died and the appellants herein were brought on record Sv order dated 9 12-1969 the Competent Authority granted permission to the present appellants to file eviction proceedings against the tenants undersection 14(l)(a) and (C) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Thereafter the appellants filed proceedings for ejectment against the respondents. The Addl. Rent Controller by his order dated 13-7-1971 dismissed the ejectment petition and gave benefit to the respondent under Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Thereafter. again a notice for arrears of rent was served on the tenants on 8-971 and a second ejectment petition was filed under Section 14(lj(a) and (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of second default. Mahinder Kumar filed his written statement. Respondents 2 to 5 also filed their joint written statement. The appellants herein filed the replications to the written statement of respondent no. 1 on 9-8 72 and to the written statement of respondents 2 to 5 on 19-9-72 and evidence was recorded by the Addl. Rent Controller. On 25 9 73 an order for eviction was passed by the Addl. Rent Controller. After the eviction order was passed, Shri Mahinder Kumar died and hia widow Smt. Urmila Devi filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal by order dated 17-8-86 allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition Being aggrieved by this order of the Rent Control Tribunal the present appellants have filed this second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(3.) At the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was raised by respondent no. 1 that the second eviction petition filed by the appellants and the other proceedings subsequent thereto are not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that since the shop in question is in the slum area, fresh permission under Section 19 of the Act was necessary to be obtained by the appellants before filing the second eviction petition. Learned counsel submitted that the permission granted by the Competent Authority vide order dated 9-12-69 got exhausted when the first eviction petition was disposed of by the Addl. Rent Controller by orderdatedl3-7-1971: Learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 1906/87 (Mohd. Usman & Others v. Mohd. Siddique & Another) decided on August 26, 1987 and submitted that all the proceedings instituted by the appellants for ejectment are without jurisdiction because the appellants had not obtained fresh permission under the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of this court in Hari Rajkishore Aggarwal v.Raj Kumar 1978(2) Rent Control in Reporter 680 where a contrary view was taken has been overuled by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Usman's case (supra).