RAM DASS T CHUGANI Vs. WAZIR CHAND NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tenant is protected in varying degrees from eviction by three principal enactments, namely, (1) the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, (2) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and (3) the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and similar legislation in other States. The question before us is whether these Acts can be construed harmoniously so that all of them can apply to a given situation or whether any oil them is repugnant to the other and is repealed by implication to the extent of the repugnancy.

(2.) The appellant is the purchaser of a house in Azadpur, Delhi, from the compensation pool under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. By virtue of the sale certificate he obtained title to the house with effect from 22-2-1964. The respondent was in occupation of the house from before the purchase and was thus entitled to the benefit of Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which absolutely protected him from eviction for a period of two years from the date on which the appellant obtained title to the house. The proviso to Section 29 (1) lays down certain exceptions to the absolute protection given to the respondent by the principal part of Section 29 (1) so that if the respondent had committed any of the acts specified in. the provisos then the appellant would have been able to evict the respondent even within the period of two years from the date of the acquisition of title to the house by him. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is also applicable to the area in which this house is situated.

(3.) The appellant filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent before the Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 even before the expiry of two years from the date of the acquisition of title to the house on the sole ground that the respondent was protected against eviction only for the period of two years by the principal part of Section 29 (1) and that this period of two years would expire during the pendency of the eviction so that after the expiry of this period of two years an order for eviction can be passed against the respondent by the Controller on the sole ground that the respondent was bound to vacate the premises on the expiry of two years if the appellant so desired.