SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. REHMAT ULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals (S.A.OS. Nos. 150 and 151 of 1971) certain questions have arisen under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 which Mr. Justice V. S. Deshpande has referred for consideration by a larger Bench. They are abstract questions of law and undoubtedly of general importance. Although there is nothing special or unusual in the facts which might affect the result, we will state them so far as they are relevant to provide a backdrop for the discussion.

(2.) On 9th August 1967, the appellant Subhash Chander (the landlord) commenced proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for evicting the respondent Rehmatullah Khan (the tenant) from premises located in Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Twice, personal service was sought to be effected on the respondent. On both occasions the process server reported that he found the premises locked and was unable to trace the respondent . So, on 17th October 1967 the Additional Rent Controller, before whom the proceedings were pending, ordered substituted service on the respondent by publication in the newspaper 'Chitra" for 20th November 1967. The notice was duly published. On 20th November 1967, no one appeared for the respondent; hence the Controller ordered proceedings to continue ex parte, and adjourned the hearing to 24th November 1967. Ex pane evidence was recorded on the adjourned date, and an ex parte order for eviction was made on 1st December 1967. Then, on 7th December 1967, the appellant applied for and obtained a warrant for possession; and obtained possession of the premises on 16th December 1967. He claims to have inducted a new tenant into the premises on that very day.

(3.) On 18th December 1967, an application was moved jointly by Kaniz Begum (the respondent's wife) and Manmohan Nath (the manager of the factory owned by the respondent) for setting aside the ex parte order for eviction and for restoration of possession of the premises. This application was dismissed on 5th January 1968 on the ground that it was not shown how the wife or the manager of the respondent was entitled to maintain it. Another application to the like effect was moved by Manmohan Nath on 16th February 1968 as attorney for the respondent. The original power of attorney dated 17th January 1968, executed by the respondent in favour of Manmohan Nath is marked Exhibit JD-/2. In this application it was said that the respondent had been arrested under the Defence of India Rules and Security Regulations on 4th December 1965, and had ever since remained in detention in the Central Jail, Srinagar; and that he got to know of the proceedings and the ex parte order for eviction for the first time on 17th January 1968, when he received a communication from his people whilst he was still in jail. By an order made on 10th February 1970 the Controller allowed this application and set aside the ex parte order of eviction. The respondent applied for restoration of possession on 11th February 1970. There were some intervening proceedings to which it is not necessary to refer. Ultimately, by an order made on 6th May 1970 the Controller refused to stay restoration any further, and issued a warrant for delivery of possession to the respondent.