ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 06-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 1044 
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 
v. 
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 20913 of2017) 
DECEMBER 06, 2017 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 - s. 7(2). 14, 50 - New Delhi 
Municipal Council Act, 1994 - s.67(3), 411 - Whether property tax 
recoverable from the tenant u/s. 67(3) of the New Delhi Municipal 
Council Act, 1994 (NDMC Act) as arrea1:5 of rent by the landlord/ 
owner can be considered to be forming part of the rent for the 
purpose of seeking eviction of such tenant who de.fc111lts in payment 
of such recoverable tax as rent - Held: Delhi Rent Control Act is an 
· earlier Act when compared to the NDMC Act, it is a special enactment 
D 
in relation to landlord and tenant issue and has a non-obstante clause 
- It restricts the right of the landlord to evict the tenant at his will -
Sub-section (2) of s.7 of the Act puts an embargo on the landlord 
not to recover from the tenant any amount of tax on the building or 
land imposed in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant -
E 
F 
Whereas, NDMC Act is not a special enactment insofar as landlord-
tenant issue is concerned and it contains s. 411 which provides that 
other laws not to be disregarded - S.67(3) of the NDMC Act merely 
gives a right to recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent - It 
does not override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of 
s. 7 (2) of the Rent Act - Tax recoverable from the tenant 11/s. 67 (3) of 
the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant cannot be 
considered to be forming part of the rent for seeking eviction of the 
respondent who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rem 
- Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious Construction. 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 -
Object of the Act -
G Interpretation of provisions - Held: It is settled that while 
inteq1reti11g the provisions of this Act, the Courts are under a legal 
compulsion to harmoniously read the provisions of the Act so as to 
balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the tenant 
towards each other, keeping in mind that one of the objects of the 
H 
1044 
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1045 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
legislature while enacting the Rent Act was to curb the tendency of A 
the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants paying lower rent and 
to rent out the premises at the market rate. 
Interpretation of Statlltes - Harmonious Construction - Held: 
While the nomial pri11cij1le is that an earlier enactment will prevail 
over a latter enactment even if, there is a non-obstante clause in the 
latter enactment, if it were to be held that the earlier enactment is a 
special enactment on the particular subject being in issue -Assuming 
that the latter enactment prevailing over the earlier enactment were 
to apply ro this case, the two enactments have to be harmoniously 
construed so as to ensure that the latter enactment does not cause 
violence to the intent of the earlier enactment - Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958 - New Delhi Municip,,/ Council Act, 1994. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
HELD: Whether non-payment of property tax recoverable 
from the tenant as rent can be a ground for his cvictionlcjectment D 
from the premises 
1. The Delhi Rent Control Act is beneficial and also 
restrictive in nature. It is primarily an Act to provide for the 
control of rents and evictions. Section 14 occurring in Chapter 3 
of the Rent Act provides for controlling of eviction of tenants. It E 
puts an embargo as regards recovery of possession of any 
premises at the instance of the landlord unless the Controller 
satisfies himself as regards existence of any of the grounds 
specifically referred to in the proviso appended thrrcto. [Para 
15] [1053-A-C] 
2. While the normal principle is that the latter enactment 
will prevail in cases where the latter enactment has a 11011-obstante 
clause, that is, giving it overriding effect and secondly, if it is also 
held to be a special enactment with regard to the matter in issue. 
In the instant case, the earlier enactment has a no11-obsta11te clause 
F 
in Section 14 which grants protection to the tenant from being 
G 
evicted from any premises "notwithstanding anything to the 
contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order of decree 
for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by 
any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant." 
H 
1046
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.