HINDUSTAN HOUSING FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eviction of tenants in Delhi was formerly controlledby the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act of 1952) the provisions of which were repeated and were re-enacted by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act of 1958) which is now in force. The construction of section 17 of the Act of 1952 (corresponding to section 22 of the Act of 1958) arises for consideration in this reference to Division Bench.

(2.) The Hindustan Housing Factory, a. private limited company registered under the Companits Act, is the owner and the landlord of the premises which were let for a period of three months to Rajinder Singh (respondent) with effect from 16-1-1955. But as Rajinder Singh did not vacate the premises, a notice terminating the tenancy from 28-2-1957 was given to him on 31-1-1957. As he still refused to vacate the premises, the landlord filed a suit for eviction against him under section 17 of the Act of 1952. This suit was pending when the Act of 1958 came into force and according to section 57(2) of the Act of 1958, the provisions of the Act of 1952 were to govern the disposal of the suit as if the Act of 1958 had not been passed and the Act of 1952 was still in force. The suit was resisted by Rajinder Singh. It was found as a fact, however, that the premises were required by the landlord for the use of the employees of the company. Rajinder Singh in his written statement filed in the trial Court did not raise the plea that either by the notice' to quit dated 31-1-1957 or by the acceptance of rent of the premises, the tenancy was renewed by the landlord in his favour. The parties and the trial Court proceeded on the footing that the tenancy of Rajinder Singh was effectively terminated. The trial Court held that Rajinder Singh had acted in contravention of the terms of the tenancy which required him to vacate the premises on the termination thereof and he was also in unauthorized occupation of the premises He was, therefore, liable to be evicted under clauses (b) and (c) of section 17 of the Act of 1952. In the appeal by the tenant, the Senior Subordinate Judge considered an argument advanced by Rajinder Singh that his possession after the termination of the tenancy was with the consent of the landlord inasmuch as the notice dated 31-1-1957 called his possession to be "tenancy"' and therefore, Rajinder Singh was holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. This plea was, how- ever, not raised in the pleading of Rajinder Singh and could not have, therefore, been legitimately considered by the Senior Subordinate Judge. However, it persuaded the learned Senior Subordinate to hold that Rajinder Singh was not in unauthorized occupation of the premises. He had also not contravened any condition of the tenancy during the continuance of the tenancy. Following the decision in Brigadier K. K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358(1), therefore, the first appellate Court held that Rajinder Singh could not be evicted either under clause (b) or clause (c) of section 17 of the Act of 1952. This revision by the landlord was referred to a Division Bench mainly because of the Bombay decision followed by the first appellate Court.

(3.) The question before us is whether Rajinder Singh (respondent) was liable to be evicted either under clause (b) or clause (c) of section 17 of the Act of 1952 (corresponding to clauses (b) and (c) of section 22 of the Act of 1958), Section 17 of the Act of J952 was as follows :-