HAJI MOHAMMAD DIN Vs. NARAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the effect of the change in the definition of "tenant" in section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the principal Act) brought about by the retrospective amendment made by section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (amending Act), which is to be considered in these appeals referred to the Full Bench.

(2.) The Questions (1) What is the meaning of "tenant" in section 2(1) of the principal Act firstly under the old definition as it existed prior to 1st December, 1975 and secondly in the amended definition with effect from 1st December, 1975 ? (2) Does the decision of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and others v. Parashram and others, AIR 1976 S. C. 2229(1), apply to the construction of the old definition of "tenant" in preference to the majority decision in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi and others, AIR 1965 SC 4'14(2), followed in J. C. Chatterjee & others, v. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and others, AIR 1972 S. C. 2526(3) ? (3) Whether in the new definition clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 2(1) have to be considered together or whether clause (ii) thereof can be construed independently of clause (iii) and without being fettered by it ?

(3.) The Change(a) Old Definition: The original definition of "tenant" in section 2(1) in the principal Act was as follows : , tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or but for a special contract would be, payable and includes a sub-tenant and also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been passed."