LexANAND SWAROOP VOHRA versus BHIM SEN BHARI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ANAND SWAROOP VOHRA
v.
BHIM SEN BHARI AND ANR.
JULY 21, 1994
B
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, .J.J.J
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14-C~ 14( l)(e) and 25-B{li).
Classified landlord, Retired Central Govemmelll Employe<-Right to
•
C recover bnnzediate possession of tenanted prenzises for own residence under
section 14(C}-VVhether different front and independent of right under section
14(l){e}-'-Scope of tenant'.» in such a mailer-What is.
The appellant, a retired Central (;overnment employee, filed an
application under section 25-B(I) of the Act read with Section 14(C) of the
D Delhi Rent Conrtol Act, 1958 before the Rent Controller, Delhi seeking
eviction of the Respondents-tenants on the ground that the accommoda-
tion let out to the tenants was re<1uired for his own residence as the
accommi,dation available to him and his family members was not sufli-
cient. The tenants obtained leave to contest the same on the grounds that
E the suffi~iency or insufficiency of accommodation could not be gone into
in an application under Section 14(C). Relying upon the judgment
reported in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tar/ok Sing/I Sehgal, 43 (1991) L>LT 624
and Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985] 1S.C.R.1025 the
Rent Controller rejected the application. The revision application filed by
F
the appellent was summarily rejected by the High Court.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that the rights conferred upon the classified landlords under Sections 14-B
to 14-D are different from and.independent of the rights under Section
14(l)(e), and consequently, the principles laid down in the cases of Madan
G Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal, 43 (1991) DLT 624 and Narain Kham-
man v. Pardwnan Kumar Jain, (1985] 1 S.C.R. 1025 are inapplicable to the
_,
instant cases.
On behalf of the Respondents-tenants it was contended thllt once it
was established that the appellant had in his possession a dwelling unit as
H defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, he could not invoke the special
8
>
}
AS. VOHRA v. B.S. BHARI
9
provisions of Section 14-C of the Act and that if he feltthat the accommoda-
A
lion was insufficient he could only take recourse to the provisions of Section
14(1)(e).
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugoed orders, this
Court
HELD. : 1. 111e language of Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 is clear, plain and unambiguous and it admits of only one mean-
ing, to wit, an employee of the Central Government or Delhi Administration
who is retired or is due to retire can exercise his right to recover immediate
possession of his tenanted premises within the time prescribed, if he
rquires the same for his own residence but if he has more than one such
premises his requirement must be limited to one of his choice. As the
appellant's aJJplication fulfilled all the requirements of the above section it
could not be, therefore, rejected as not maintainable. [15-F-G]
B
c
2. It is not the case of the tenant also that except the premises let out D
to him the appellant has other tenanted premises. In the context of these
undisputed facts, the appellant's application could not be rejected.
[15-D-E]
3. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the application filed
by the appellant in accordance with law. [18-D]
Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1025 and
S.P. Jain v. K.M. Gupta, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 411, distinguished.
Swjit singlt Kalra v • .Union of India, [1991] 2 S.C.C. 87, relied on.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4848 of f
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.92 of the Delhi High Court
in C.R. No. 209 of 1992.
Arun Mohan, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Sadhna Ramachandran for the G
Appellant.
Rajindcr Sachar, Vijay Kish.an, Sandeep Narain and Attar Singh for
the Respondents.
The .I udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2S.C.R.
A
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi
High Court dated April 27, 1992 dismissing the application filed by the
appellant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('Act'
for short) for re\ision of the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated
B February 14, 1992 rejecting his application for recovery of possession of his
tenanted premises made on the ground specified in Section 14-C(l) of the
Act.
The appellant and hExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.