JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. JAI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal bristles with novel questions of law arising out of undisputed facts. The premises, namely, the first floor of 81, Golf Links, New Delhi, were constructed between 1-6-1952 and 9-6-1955. The respondent Jai Gopal was the tenant therein, Jawahar Singh the appellant being the landlord. In 1956 a suit for eviction of the tenant was filed by the landlord on the ground that the tenant was in an arrears of rent and the landlord needed the premises bona fide for his own residence. The tenant admitted the claim of the landlord but prayed for the two years' time to vacate the premises to which the landlord agreed. A decree for eviction was passed in 1958. Thereafter the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force from 9-2-1959. Sub-section (2) and (3) of section 50 for the first time protected the tenants of premises constructed between 1-6-1951 and 9-6-1955 though section 39 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 had denied protection of the provisions of that Act to them. Under section 50(2) of the Act, proceedings pending for the eviction of such a tenant immediately before the commencement of the Act were to abate. If any such tenant has been evicted from the premises after 16th August 1953 th^n under section 59(3) on an application by such evicted tenant within six months of his eviction, the Controller may either direct the landlord to put the tenant back into possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the controller thinks fit.

(2.) When, therefore, the landlord sought to execute the decree for eviction in 1960, the tenant resisted the execution pleading the bar sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 50 of the Act. The execution application was dismissed by the trial Court and the dismissal was confirmed by the first appellate Court. In Civil Revision No. 318-D of 1965 by the landlord in the High Court, an eminent learned Single Judge, however, expressed the view that the tenant was not entitled to the protection of section 50 (2) as no proceeding was pending against him at the commencement of the Act. The learned Single Judge, however, expressed the view that the tenant was not entitled because of two reasons. Firstly, section 2(1) of the Act excluded a person against whom a decree for eviction has been passed from the definition of "tenant" for the purposes of the Act. Secondly. the tenant had not been evicted from the premises and the question of his being restored to possession did not, therefore, arise. The revision was, therefore, allowed and the landlord was held comptent to execute the decree for eviction against the tenant.

(3.) The tenant was thereupon evicted from the premises on 16-5-1966. On 17-5-1966 the tenant applied under section 50(3) of the Act for being put back into the possession of the premises. The Controller held that section 50(3) was applicable but declined to give the relief of possession to the tenant on the ground that the landlord could again be entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity inasmuch as in 1958 the tenant had admitted the need of the landlord for the premises for his own residence. Instead, therefore, he ordered the landlord to pay Rs. 7500.00 as compensation to the tenant. Two appeals were filed against the decision of the Controller. The appeal by the tenant (R.C.A. 1425 of 1966) sought the relief of possession or alternatively enhancement of the amount of compensation. The appeal of the landlord (R.C.A. 1586 of 1966) sought the deletion of even Rs. 7500.00 awarded as compensation. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed both the appeals. The landlord filed the present second appeal under section 39 of the Act against the award of Rs. 7500.00 as compensation. The tenant has filed crossobjections seeking restoration of possession or enhancement of comppensation to Rs. 50.000.00.