LexJAI NARAIN versus KISHEN CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAi NARAIN v. KISHEN CHAND February 27, 1969 B [M, H!DAYATULLAH, C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] c D E F Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, s. 57(1), first provi~cope of. The respondent lanO!ord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant under section 13(l)(k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, !9j2, on the ground that the appellant had c,itused damage to the premises. The trial court ordered ejecl!nent in February, 1959, and the appellate auth<>- rity dismissed an appeal in November, 1959. The Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 came into force in February, 1959. In a revision application before the High Court, the appellant invoked the provisions of the 1958 Act and relied upon section 14(1) (j) read with s. 57 of the new Act. The High Coun, acting under section 14 (1 )(j) and sub.,.ection ( 10) of the same section gave the appellant the alternative to pay compensation for the damages caused. The landlord then filed an application for review of the High Court order pointing out that the new Act was not applicable to the c:jase in view of the first proviso of section 57 ( 2) . The High Coun granted the review and reversed its earlier orders. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that by virtue of the first proviso of section 57(2) the High Court was bound to have regard to the provisions of the 1958 Act even in proceedings pending and governed by the 1952 Act. HELD : Dismissing the appeal, The language of the first proviso to section 57(2) clearly shows that the proviso applies to those cases only in which ~ection 54 cannot be made applicable. The area in the present case is admittedly subjected to the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956, which is one of the. enactments mentioned in s. 54. Accordingly the terms of the proviso would have no application in this case. [857 G; 859 BJ The High Coun had rightly held that the phrase "to which section 54 does not apply", _goyerns the word "premises" and is not connected with the words '·in any such suit or proceedings". [858A-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 389 of G 1966. . Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated ~arch 25, 1964 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi m Review Application No. 23-D of 1963'. C. B. Agarwa/a, Uma Mehta, M. L. Kapur and K. K. Sinha, H for the appellant. II( fl C. Misr«, Hishamber [al and H. K. Puri, for the respon- (lent. 8 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] j S.C.R The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J., This is ~ appeal by a tenant who had rented a shop No. 2687 in Kinari Bazar, Delhi from the respon- dent on Rs. 13.50 P per month. In those premises he was selling Usha sewing machines and fans. It appears that the level of t~e shop was too high from the road and his clients were troubled m going to his shop and so he lowered the level and thereby altered the premises to suit his convenience. The landlord thereupon filed a suit against him for his eviction under s. 13(1)(k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952. The suit was filed on November 13, 1957. The trial court ordered on February 19, 1959 ejectment and payment of Rs. 145/- as arrears of rent. An appeal against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the appellate authority on November 16, 1959. A revision applica- tion was then filed by the tenant on March 25, 1960. During the course of that revision he invoked the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 which had come into force on February 9, 1959 and relied upon s. 14 (1) (j) of the new Act read withs. 57. Previously he had not relied upon the new Act although the Act had been in force during the pendency of the previous proceed- ings. The High Court acting under s. 14(1)(j) and sub-s. (10) of the same section, gave him the alternative of paying compensa- tion in the sum of Rs. 500 which it appears that the landlord hi.mself had assessed as the damages caused by the act of the tenant. The landlord later filed an application for review of the order and pointed out that the new Act was not applicable to the case in view of the first proviso of s. 57 sub. s. (2). The High Court thereupon granted the review and reversed its earlier order and ordered the eviction of the tenant. In this appeal it is contended that the High Court was in error in passing the order on review and that the previous order was the correct order in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.