UNION CARBIDE INDIA LIMITED Vs. DALIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision application against the order of the Rent Controller refusing him leave to contest the landlord's application for eviction u/s 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) S. 25-B is in Chapter III-A which prescribes summary trial where the eviction is sought by the landlord u/s 14(1)(e) or u/s 14-A. Chapter III-A has an over-riding effect on the other provisions of the Act by virtue of S. 25-A Under the Transfer of Property Act a lessor has a right to evict the lessee for any breach of the Agreement of lease. This common law right of the landlord recognised by the Transfer of Property Act, was fettered by the Rent Control Acts paused after the Second World War. Delhi Rent Control Act and its predecessor Acts follow this direction. These enactments imposed restrictions or control in matters of rent to be charged from the tenants and their evictions. We are immediately concerned with the question of eviction in this petition. The new protection given to a tenant in regard to eviction is recognised in Section 14(1) of the Act. This sub-section supersedes the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the lease agreements between landlords and tenants. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the landlord had relatively absolute right of eviction. The eviction proceedings were regulated by procedure in the Civil Procedure Code . Tenant had a full right to refute the landlord's claim by cross-examining the landlord and his witnesses and leading his own evidence. The cases under Transfer of Property Act were tried ordinarily by the civil courts. The Rent Control Act took away the jurisdiction of the civil courts by virtue of S. 50 of the Act. S. 37 prescribes the procedure before the Rent Controller. The procedure is to be the same as is followed by the Small Causes Court under the Small Causes Court Act. But even that Section provides for the reasonable opprotunity of showing cause as well as the right to lead evidence. The title of Chapter III-A shows that even the summary procedure of the Small Causes Court was found dilatory by the Legislature. It was felt by the Legislature that a more stringent summary trial of the eviction petitions u/s 14(1)(e) and u/s 14A was necessary. The normal right of being heard was made conditional on the tenant obtaining leave from the Rent Controller. The tenant is also not entitled to lead evidence at that stage. He must satisfy the Rent Controller by disclosing facts in the form of an affidavit which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession.

(3.) The concept of rule of law has two aspects-substantive and procedural. This is expressed in the form of substantive due process and procedural due process in other systems of law. Proper procedure (ensuring fair trial) is a vital component of justice. Common law system recognises importance of procedural legal remedies more than any other system. Right to constitutional remedies in Article 32 is thus ilself a fundamental right.