RAJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. I herein while in service of the Government filed an application for eviction against Respondent No. 1 in respect of ground floor and first floor of the premises No. Z/9, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi under Section 14-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as amended) hereinafter referred to as the Act and presented it on Januaiy 7, 1977. Subsequently he made an application to the Rent Controller, Delhi that he did not want to proceed with is eviction petition and accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn. After retirement from Government service, the petitioner against filed a petition for eviction on January 11, 1979 under Section 14-A of the Act in respect of the said premises being eviction petition No. B-53/79. Section 14-A was added by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 with the object of conferring a right on Government servant landlords to recover immediate possession of premises belonging to them when the cause of action as mentioned therein accured. During the course of arguments the Rent Controller, Delhi got it clarified from the learned counsel for petitioner No. I as to under what provision of law he was prosecuting his claim. The counsel stated that he was coming under Section 14-A of the Act because under law he could not combine the claim under Section 14-A and Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The Rent Controller proceeded to consider the merits of that eviction petition and came to the conclusion that the case was not at all covered under Section 14-A of the Act. It was held that a case Under Section 14-A of the Act was not made out. The eviction petition was dismissed by order dated August 10, 1981. However, the Rent Controller, Delhi further considered that if it is to be taken that the petitioner had come under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, them no right is available on account of the fact that the premises in question had not been let out for residential purposes. I may mention here that for the .purpose of disposal of a petition under Section 14-A the use or purpose of letting is no conclusive test. Whatever, is suitable or adopted for residential uses can be designated as residential premises and is "residential accommodation" within the meaning of Section 14-A. The letting purpose was not to be determined in those proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner then filed on October 21, 1981 a fresh petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for eviction of Respondent No. 1, tenant from the said premises. The petition was tried under the summary procedure contained under Section 25-B and summons under Schedule III of the Act were issued to the tenant. The tenant filed an application dated December 2, 1981 for leave to contest the eviction petition. The grounds on which the leave was. sought are contained in the affide of Shri S. B. Roy Chaudhry dated December 2, 1981. By order dated September 7, 1982 the Rent Controller granted leave to the tenant to contest the eviction petition on the ground alleged in Sub para 1(4) of Para 4 of the affidavit dated December 2,1981.

(3.) By the same order the Rent Controller proceed to consider the grounds of eviction. The Rent Controller noticed the filing of the earlier eviction petition No. E-53/79 under Section 14-A of the Act and the Judgment dated August 10, 1981. The Rent Controller then considered the finding recorded in the order dated August 10, 1981 that the premises had not been let out for residential purposes only. The Rent .Controller proceeded to consider the lease deed and other documents were not let for residen- tial purposes only. It is this part of the order which is challenged in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.