LAWS(DLH)-1991-7-18

P NELSON Vs. V K SUN

Decided On July 31, 1991
P.NELSON Appellant
V/S
V.K.SURI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein filed an eviction petitionunder Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended byAmending Act of 1988 (in short 'the Act'). By the aforesaid amendment, theLegislature provided that if the landlady is a widow and the premises let out byher or by her husband are required by her, for her own residence, she mayapply to the Controller for recovery of immediate possession of the tenancypremises.

(2.) After service of notice of the eviction petition, the tenant, (respondent herein), applied for leave to defend under Section 25-B(5) of the Act. Oneof the grounds taken, inter alia, was that since the petitioner had let out thepremises to the respondent after she became widow, the provisions of Section 14-D were not available to her. The Rent Controller treated this objection as to the maintainability of the eviction petition as a preliminary point,and on the strength of a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as41 (1990) (4) DLT 483, Dr. P.P. Kapur v. Union of India and others, held that inorder to be entitled to seek eviction by resort to provisions of Section 14-Dof the Act, the premises ought to have been let out before the landladybecame widow. In view of the admitted facts, that the premises were let out tothe respondent by the petitioner after she become widow, the Rent Controllerin view of the above quoted judgment of this Court, dismissed the eviction petition, as not maintainable.

(3.) In this revision petition, it is pleaded that the view taken by theRent Controller while dismissing the eviction petition no longer holds good,in as mush as the Supreme Court in a case reported as 43 (1991) Delhi LawTimes 456, EMC Steel Limited. Calcutta v. Union of India and another hasexpressly overruled the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Dr. P.P. Kapur'scase (supra), to the effect that in order to succeed on the basis of Section 14-Dof the Act, the petitioner must have become widow before the letting out. Itruled very clearly that it is immaterial whether the premises had been letout by the husband of the lady during his life time or by herself after becoming a widow.