WAZIR CHAND Vs. NARAIN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal instituted by the landlord U/S 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against an order whereby his petition for eviction U/S 14(1) (e) has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petition cannot be instituted because Section 19(1) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 states that no suit for eviction can be filed without obtaining permission from the Competent Authority if the premises are situated in a slum area. The landlord did not dispute the fact that the premises are situated in the slum area and are covered by the Act, but the contention was that on account of the amendment made by the Amendment Act of 1976, it was no longer necessary to get permission from the Competent Authority as the new Chapter IIIA had introduced a new procedure for the trial of applications U/S 14(1) (e) and the newly introduced Section 14A. The Rent Controller found that as far as Section 14A was concerned, it had an over-riding effect over all laws and, therefore, no permission was necessary from the Competent Authority. But, as regards, Section 14(1) (e) he held that such permission was necessary. In these circumstances, he found that unless permission was obtained from the Competent Authority, no eviction order could be passed. It was also observed that an application seeking permission was already pending before the Competent Authority, An appeal was taken to the Rent Control Tribunal, who reached the same conclusion.

(2.) The Rent Control Tribunal has given an additional reason for distinguishing between eviction proceedings U/S 14(1) (e) from those U/S 14A. It was stated there that Section 14A created a substantative right in favour of a special class of landlords whereas Section 14(1) (e) was not substantially available except to the extent that a new procedure had been introduced for trial of petitions instituted under that clause. A judgment of this court reported as Om Prakash Gupta v. Ram Nath etc. 1976, Raj. Law Reporter 613, and some other judgments were referred to, where it had been held that Section 14A provided a special procedure which did not require any pre-conditions, whereas cases U/S 14(1) (e) had to be decided in exactly the same way as before except when there was a different procedure.

(3.) When this appeal came before me for admission, reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 265-Rajdhani L. R. 44 wherein it had been held that it was not necessary to get permission from the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas Act, 1956, for the purpose of proceedings U/S 14A. That judgment also makes some reference to proceedings U/S 14(1) (e) and it is observed that the procedure under 25B is of an over-riding nature of the provisions of Section 25A, which in turn over-ride the provisions of Section 54, wherein it was said :