B. N. MUTTO & ANR. versus T. K. NANDI

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 29-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
-
• 
. ,_,._ 
409 
B. N. MOTTO & ANR. 
v. 
T. K. NANDI 
November 29, 1978 
[P. s. KAILASAM, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Ss. 14(I)(e), !4A and 258(5)-Scope of. 
Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 prohibits a court from 
making any order or decree in favour of a landlord for recovery of possession 
of any premises except under certain cir.:umstances. 
One of the grounds on 
which the landlord can make an application to the Rent Controller for recovery 
of' possession '11S provided ins. 14(1)(e) of the Act is that the premises let for 
residential purposes are required bot..1afide by the landlord for occnpation as 
a residence for himself and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable 
. residential accommodation. 
In September, 1975 the Central Government decided that Government ser-
A 
B 
c 
-v"-nts who owned houses in the Union Territory of Delhi should, within three 
D 
months from 1st October, 1975, vacate Government accommodation let out to 
them. 
By the Delhi Rent Control Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 the Act 
was amended and eventually the Amendment Act, 1976 replaced the Ordinance . 
. By a deeming provision the Act came into force on the date of the Ordinance 
ie. 1st December, 1975. 
Section 14A which was added by the amendment A.ct provides that n. land-
E 
1ord who, being a person in occupation of any reside1,1tiai premises allotted to 
him by the Central Government is required to vacate such residential accom-
modat'ion on the ground that he owns in the Union Territory of Delhi a resi-
dential accommoda.tion, a right shall accrue to such landlord to recover ;mme-
-diately ros.;;ei:;sion of the premises let out by him. 
Section 25B provides for 
special procedure for disposal of application for eviction under s. 14( 1) (e) 
and s. 14A, 
Section 25B provides that when an application is filed by the 
F 
landlord under either s. 14(1)(e) ors. 14A, the tenant shall not contest the 
prayer for eviction unless he files an affidaivit and obtai~s leave from the Con-
troller. 
Sub~section (5) requires that the affidavit filed by the tenant should 
disclose such facts as \VOu\d diseintitle the larndlord from obtaining an order 
for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in s. 14 
(!)(e) or s. J4A. 
The appellant (landlord) let out his residential accommodation in New Delhi 
G 
to the respondent (tenant). 
The la.ndlord was a Government servant who had 
been allotted Government a.:oommodation in New Delhi. 
On 9th December, 
1975 the Government issued a notice to the la•,1dlord calling upon him to 
vacate Government accomtnodntion allotted to him. 
Tn 
the 
meantime the 
landlord retired from service on 30th November, 1975. On 9th December, 1975 
the h1ndlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from his 
house. 
The 
ten<1nt raised three objections as to the maintainability of the petition: (i) that 
fl 
the landlord could not invoke the provisions of s. 25B(5) because he was not 
a Government servant on the date of the petition; (ii) that since the ground on 
1l-978SCI/78 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
which eviction \Vas sought in the petition was the same which had already been 
filed by the landlord and \Vas pending before the Rent Controller, the petition 
could not be entertained, and (iii) that the premises occupied by him were let 
out for residentia.J. or professional purposes and therefore the landlord was not 
entitled to ask for eviction as the pr~mises v;;ere not let for residential pmr· 
poses alone. 
B 
The Rent Controller rejected all the contentictis and refused leave to the 
tenant to defend the landlord's eviction petition. He held tRat (i) the qu~stion 
whether the landlord was a Government servant or not on 1he date \Vhefl the 
notice was received alf!d on the date \vhen he filed a petition \V<'.5 irrelevant 
so long as he satisfied the requirements laid do\vn ins. 14! 1 ). tii) the ground 
for eviction under s. 14A was a new cause of action and different from the 
one raised in the previous petition and, therefore the petition \vas not barred, 
C 
(iii) it was not necessary for an a.pplication under s. 14(1) that the building 
should have been let for residential purposes as required under s. 14(l)(e), ~ 
it is sufficient if the landord required the premises for residential accomm0da- ~ 
D 
~ 
. 
Allowing the tenant's revision, the High C·ourt held that since the landlord 
had reti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.