KANWAL NAIN VIG Vs. PRAN NATH KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition involves a very interesting question with regard to the interpretation of Section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The eviction petition was filed by the petitioner against the respondent on the ground that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of some other premises. It was contended before the Additional Rent Controller that the acquisition of the alternative accommodation bearing No. 85, New Rajdhani Enclave, New Delhi by the wife of the respondent alongwith her sons is covered under Section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was further contended that the relationship between the wife and the respondent were cordial and the respondent as residing in the said accommodation alongwith his family members whereas the tenanted premises were lying locked. Before the Additional Rent Controller the respondent took the plea that the case of the petitioner was not covered under Section 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as respondent himself has not acquired any vacant possession of the premises. It was further contended before the Additional Rent Controller that the respondent has no legal right in the property acquired by his wifg and sons. It was argued that in view of Section 14(l)(hh) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the case of the petitioner was not covered under Section 14(l)(h) as respondent's wife and sons had built the said accommodation on a vacant plot of land. The Additional Rent Controller returned the findings that the respondent had acquired the premises and the acquisition of the said premises by the wife of the respondent can be taken into consideration under Section 1.4(1 )(h) of the Act. In this regard reliance was placed on Prem Chand & Anr. v. Sher Singh; 1981 DRJ 287; 1985 Vol. (1) Delhi All India Rent Control Journal 250 and AIR 1994 NOC 219 (Delhi). It was further observed by the Additional Rent Controller that respondent had failed to prove her source of income to purchase the plot and to raise constructions over the same. In the cross-examination respondent admitted that he got the plan sanctioned in respect of the property in the name of his wife and sons and the Rent Controller held that all the facts demonstrated that the respondent has domain over the property belonging to his wife and sons. No documents, date of construction of the premises or the total expenditure incurred thereupon was placed on record by the respondent. Additional Rent Controller passed the order under 14(l)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. Rent Control Tribunal reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller on the ground_that on the parity of reasoning when acquisition of a flat by the wife of the tenant has been considered to an acquisition of a flat by the tenant, the building of an alternative house by the wife of the tenant has to be held to be building of the house by the tenant himself and, therefore, embargo contain in Clause (hh) would be attracted prohibiting the landlord/respondent, to bring eviction petition against the tenant before the expiry of 10 years from the date of building of the house by the tenant and set aside the order and judgment of the Additional Rent Controller. Mr. Sapra, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that Clause (hh) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 be read alongwith Section 3 of the Act. He has further contended that before the amendment of Section 14(hh) came into force word "built" were taken out from Section 14(l)(h) and, therefore, new Section 14(l)(hh) was introduced in which the word "built" has been used by the Legislature in its wisdom to protect such construction of residence which was constructed after the commencement of Delhi Rent Control Act (Amendment), 1988 and within 10 years of such building of residence no petition for eviction could be filed against the tenant.

(3.) To my mind, there is an obvious fallacy in the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Delhi Rent Control Act is a special statute which places restrictions on renting of properties under the Transfer of Property Act. It was enacted to control eviction of tenants. Therefore, the area which was occupied hitherto by the Transfer of Property Act a special statute came into force to control eviction and also provided mechanism for taking back the possession of the property in terms of grounds as available to the landlord/owner incorporated under Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act carved out certain classes of persons, certain properties and premises where monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500.00 from the application of Rent Control Act, furthermore Section 3(d) provided that any premises constructed on or after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1988 for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of such constructions, these classes of person and properties as mentioned in Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was taken out from the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. to say the rigours which were applicable to such class and person of properties were no more required and properties were to be dealt under normal law i.e. the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the harmonious construction of Section 3 read with Sections 14(l)(h) and 14(hh) would demonstrate that Legislature in its wisdom taken out the word "built" from Section 14(l)(h) and another Section 14(l)(hh) was inserted in 1988 and word "built" was used in the new section.