S N KOTVALA Vs. PREM SARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the Order dated 21/2/1998 passed by Ms. R. Kiran Nath, Rent Controller Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/tenant on the ground that the petitioner was an employee in Delhi Vidyut Board and was due to retire w.e.f. 30/4/1998. The learned Judge has interpreted the provisions of Section 14C of the Act and held that the petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Delhi Administration as he was an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board and, consequently rejected the petition. Section 14C of the Act reads as uncter:

(2.) The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed a Junior Clerk with Delhi Vidyut Board w.e.f. 21/3/1961. The said organisation though is an independent body is in close proximity with Delhi Administration inasmuch as some of the employees working in Delhi Administration are posted in Delhi Vidyut Board as well as in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and vice versa. The learned Rent Controller could not have taken the view that retired employees of such Bodies cannot have the benefit of provisions of Section 14C of the Act. This is a prima facie against the spirit of the Statute and will lead to anamolous situation. It is not the intention of law that the benefit of the provisions of Section 14C of the Act will apply to retired employees either of the Central Government or Delhi Administration arid the employees of other Governmental and Statutory Bodies which are not directly part of Central Government or Delhi Administration cannot take recourse to Section 14C of the Act. The view taken by the Rent Controller is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. This will also amount to very narrow interpretation of the provisions which are meant to give redress to retiring employees of the Government including those working in Organisations such as Delhi Vidyut Board. This Court in a judgment reported as S. C. Chawla Vs. Sh. Harbans Lal Khullar, 1993 (26) DRI 407, has considered the case of an employee of Railway Board with regard to protection under Section 14C of the Act Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment which deal with the definition of Central Government employee may be reproduced as follows :

(3.) The Delhi Vidyut Board is a Body Corporate as will be indicative from the reading of the provisions of Delhi Vidyut Board Rules, 1997. The Constitution and composition, term of office and conditions of re-appointment of Members of the Board and appointment of Secretary are defined in Rules 3,4 and 5. The approval of the Government for such appointments is required. Sub-clause (vii) of Rule 2 which contains the definition reads as follows :