DAVID BROWN Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for decision in these two connected second appeals (SAO. 37 and 42 of 1971) is whether the orders of eviction passed by the Controller against these two tenants who are the appellants in favour of the common respondent who is the landlord under proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were illegal on the ground that the petition for eviction by the landlord were filed in November, 1968 though the actual date of retirement of the landlord was 17th August, 1971.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the tenant appellants are on strong ground in urging that the decision must solely rest upon the construction of proviso (e) which is in the following terms :-

(3.) Proviso (e) of section 14 (l) has, therefore, to be reasonably construed. On the one hand, the landlord may file the petition for eviction a short time ahead of the actual date of his retirement if the retirement would definitely take place before the decision of the petition in the trial court itself. For, in such a case the trial Court can be certain on the date of the decision that the landlord has retired and the petition is not premature, if the trial court takes such a view of the case and does not dismiss the petition on the ground that it is premature it would be difficult for the appellate Court tto reverse such a decision on the ground that the petition should have been dismissed as premature particularly when the retirement would have taken place before the appeal is decided. On the other hand, the trial Court would be equally acting according to law if it were to construe proviso (e) to mean that the requirement of the landlord must be a present one and not a future one. Of course, what is a present requirement would also have to be decided on the facts of each case. Generally speaking, the requirement would not be regarded as a present one if the landlord were not to retire very soon after the presentation of the petition and at any rate before the decision of the trial Court was expected.