SHIV SHANKAR RUSTOGI Vs. UMA SHANKAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The avowed intention of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as contained in its preamble,is to provide for control of rents and evictions in Delhi. It is indeed paradoxical that in the present case the protection of the Act is sought by Shri Lima Shankar Sharma (Respondent/tenant herein) in respect of the tenancy granted to him by Shri Shiv Shankar Rastogi (Petitioner/landlord herein). This in respect of a part of the premises bearing No. 5770, Jogi wara, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Shri Sharma, who is hereinafter referred to as Tenant, is the himself a landlord, being the owner of residential flat No. 114, First Floor, Chilla Dhallupura, New Delhi by virtue of his being a member of the Leiah Group Housing Society. The Tenant has sought exemption from eviction for a period of ten years by virtue of the provisions of Section 14(1)(hh) of the Act. The Petitioner/Landlord had successfully contended before the Additional Rent Controller that this provision cannot be availed of by the Tenant as the said flat had been allotted to him. That finding, however, has been revered by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in the impugned Judgment dated 8.11.2000, in whose opinion the said flat was constructed and completed near or around November, 1992 and since the ten years period as per Section 14(1)(hh) of the Act had not elapsed, no cause of action to file the eviction petition had accrued in favour of the Landlord. The difference of opinion between the Controller and the Tribunal is that the former considered the tenant as an allottee, whereas the latter considered the tenant as having built the flat. The relevant provisions read as follows :-

(2.) Section 14(1)(h) prior to its amendment in 1988 was in the following words - "that the Tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence." The only amendment to this sub-section was the deletion of the word 'built' which has been underlined above for clarification. Simultaneous with the deletion of the word 'built' in sub-Section (h), the new Sub-Section (hh) was incorporated into the Act and this word/concept was expressed therein.

(3.) The Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Bill 1988 came up for perusal of the Parliament on its introduction in the Rajya Sabha, by the Minister of Urban Development. On the question at issue it was stated that - "The second objective of this Bill is to give a boost to house building activity and to promote maintenance of the existing housing stock in a reasonable state of repair. This is sought to be achieved mainly by exempting from the purview of the Rent Control law newly constructed premises for a period of ten years from the date of completion of such construction, and providing for periodical revision and updating of standard rent to compensate for inflation etc." While considerable debate was generated on other aspects of the Amendment, a perusal of the Speeches discloses that on this issue there was general concurrence and support. A perusal of the Parliamentary Debates in the Lok Sabha reveal that a few of its Hon'ble Members made a reference to these provisions. One member opined that "the Government has given exemption for ten years because of new construction, who will be benefited by this exemption? A person already owning a house, will misuse the provision in case of new one. Only the people owning one house should be allowed to meet the benefits of this exemption and not the persons owning houses more than one." Another Hon'ble Member stated that "exemption has been granted for ten years to .the new construction. A provision to this effect has been made in the Bill. The tenants already living in the houses have also been benefited. Till now, the tenants have to vacate the house after constructing their own houses. But this Bill provides exemption to them for ten years under new construction because people have to repay the loans which they have taken from the banks for constructing the houses." Interestingly, an Hon'ble Member has stated that "over 50% of Government Officers own two or" three houses at some place or the other and, therefore, some attention should be paid to the benefits sought to be extended to them. In these matters in view the Government has made this provision to encourage the housing activities. Earlier, no tenant was enthusiastic to construct his house, because he knew that he would have to vacate the house as soon as he built his, own house." The Debates and Speeches', predominantly deal with the more significant aspects of the amendments viz. taking those premises where the rent was Rs.3500/- . and above out of the purview of the Act; permitting an increase of 10% every three years and granting special rights to certain categories of house owners, such as retiring government servants, army personnel, widows etc. The Lok Sabha passed the Bill which had earlier been passed by the Rajya Sabha. Even if it is found that there may be some ambiguity in the wording of Section 14(1)(hh) of the Act, which I find there is none, the objectives of the Amendment and the Parliamentary Debate would disclose that an impetus to fresh construction was sought to be given. When the DDA carries out building activity it does so not at the instance or initiative of a particular individual, but because there is a large scale demand for residential units, which cannot be satiated by the enterprises of the DDA alone. The only possible construction to the provision of Section 14(1)(hh) is that an individual must build or caused to be built a residential unit for him to avail the ten year moratorium on eviction. If he acquires an already existing residential unit the number of units is not augmented. Therefore the purpose of the amendment is not served.