LexBRIJ KISHORE GUPTA versus VISHWAMITRA KAPUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D BRU KISHORE GUPTA v. VISHWAMITRA KAPUR January 8, 1965 [P. B. GA.TENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO AND J. C. SHAH, JJ.] Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952-Constructlon of unautho- rised structures-Suit for ejectment-Removal of structures-pending pro- ceedings-Whether court could grant relief-Repeal of the 1952 Act by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sectlons 57(2) & 14(1) of new Act-- Scope of. In each of the two appeals before the court, suits had been filed by landlords under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, for eject- ment on the ground that the tenants had erected certain structures with· out the authority of the landlords and in violation of the conditions of lease between the landlord and the concerned authorities. However, in both these cases the tenants had removed the offending structures during the pendency of the suits and the question for decision in both the cases was whether the tenant could still be ejected after be had removed the authorised structures and there was no further danger to the landlords' leases being forfeited. It was contended on behalf of the landlords that once a breach bad Ileen committed by a tenant within the meaning of cl. (k) of the pro\iso to s. 13(1) of the 1952 Act, he was liable to be ejected even though the landlord may never have given him notice about the breach and may not even have required him to remove it; and that his liability to ejectment would continue even if he had removed the offending structure before JC the filing of the suit or while it was pending. Furthermore, by virtue of the provisions of s. 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (which repealed the 1952 Act), these two appeals fell to be governed by cl. (k) of the proviso to s. 13 (1) of the 1952 Act and not by cl. (k) of proviso to s 14(1) of 1958 Act or bys. 14(11) of that Act which made 1t possible fur the Controller not to make an order of eviction if the tenant com- plied with any requirements specified by the Controller; this was so becawe the first proviso to s. 57(2) of the 1958 Act which required that in certain r circumstances regard shall be bad to the 1958 Act, was not applicable to these 1wo cases, · · HELD : ( i) While considering the scope of the 6rst proV!So to s. 57(2), it was held in Karam Singh v. Sri Pratap Chand, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1305 that where, in the 1958 Act, there was a· radical departure from the 1952 Act, the latter Act would continue to apply to pending proceedings; but where the 1958 Act bad slightly modified or clarified G the previous provisions, then these modifications or clarifications would apply. Section 14(11) of the 1958 Act did not provide a radical depar- ture from the provisions of the 1952 Act. because when the latter Act was in force, it would have been possible for the court in a suit based on cl. (k) of the proviso to s. 13(1) to give relief against forfeiture in a pro- per case on the analogy of s. 114A of the Transfer of Property Act where the tenant bas removed the offending structure before the suit was filed; or even where he bad done so during the pendencv of the suit if reasonable H time was not allowed in the notice contemplated by cl. (k) of the pro\iso to s. 13(1). Whens. 14(11) of the 1958 Act gave power to the Controller to give relief to the tenant under the conditions mel)tioned therein, it was in fact clarifying and slightly modifying what the court could 706 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1965] 2 S.C.R. already do under the 1952 Act. Therefore, regard could be had to the 1t. provisions of s. 14( 11) of the 1958 Act and relief granted to the tenants in both appeals. (710 E-F; 711 F-H; 712 C-E] (ii) Under the 1952 Act, the language of the proviso to s. 13(1) was imperative and laid down that nothing in the Act applied when various clquses of the proviso were satisfied. Although the language of the proviso to s. 14(1) of the 1958 Act is not so imperative, there is no difference in substance. Where the requirements of the proviso under B the 1958 Act are satisfied, the Controller has to pass a decree for ejectment unless there is provision otherwise in s. 14. (709 G-H; 910 A-Bl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 879 of 1962 etc. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and .decrees dated C January 18, 1961, and December 13, 1960 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi, in Civil Revision No. 13-D of 1958 and Civil Revision Case No. 59
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.