LexJAIN MALLEABLES versus BHARAT SAHAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
-
JAIN MALLEABLES
v.
BHARAT SAHAY
December 8, 1981
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR, BAHARUL {SLAM
AND A. V ARADARAJAN, JJ.]
53
A
B
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, section 14A (I) read with .1ection 25B and
C
Governme~t of India Notifications dated 9-9-1975 and 14-7-1,977, scope of.
The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant,
under 'section i4A read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on
the ground of requirement for personal occupation, in view of the fact that he
~as forced to pay penal rent of Rs. 1,448 from his Government accommoda-
tion as per Government of India notification dated 9-9-1975 and the special
order dated 22-1-1916 requiring him to. vacate the Government accommodation
by 31-12-1975. After presentation of the eviction petition and service of notice
under section 25B of the Act, the appellant filed a petition for grant of leave to
defend the main petition and raised several objections in the written state-
ment. One such objection was that in view of the later circular of the Govern-
ment dated 14-7-19"7, the respo!ldent was not required to vacate the Govern-
ment accommodation and, therefore, he w11s not entitled to evict the appellants
under the provisions of section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said
objection having been disallowed by the Additional 'Rent Controiler the appel-
l!!nt filed Civil Revision Petition before the Delhi High Court, which met with
the same fate. · Hence the appeal against that order by special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : I. The respondent landlord is entitled to have recourse to sec-
tion 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for evicting the appellants from
the premises in question.
[68 A-B]
2.
The second notification dated 14-7-1977 of the Government, without
taking away the obligation imposed by the first notification dated 9-9-75 on
Govern men! employees owning houses in their own names or in the name of
any ·other member of their families, within the limits of their place of posting,
vacate the Government accomodation within three months from !st of October,
1975, has given an option to those employees to continue to occupy the
Government accommodation subject to the obligation mentioned in the second
notification, namely, that. the house owning Government employee will have
to pay normal rent for the Government accommodation if the income from his
1>wn ho11se does not e11ceed Rs 1,000 per mensem half the market rent if the
D
E
F
G
H
A
8
c
0
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!982] 2 s.c.il.
income from his own house exceeds Rs. 1,000 per mensem but does not exceed
Rs. 2,000/- per mensem and full market rent if the income from his house is
above Rs. 2,000 per mensem with effect from 1-6-1977. [64 C-E]
3. In the present case, (iJ even apart from the first notification dated
9-9-1975 which is general in nature and has been modified by the second notifica-
tion dated 14-7-1977 there is the stiecial. order dated 22-1-1976 which required the
respondent to vacate the Government accommodation by 31-12-1975, failing
which he is to pay market rent with effect from 1-1-1976: (ii) the market rent/
licence fee which the respondent had to pay for the Government accommoda-
tion on the date of institution of the Eviction Petilion was Rs. 1,448 per
mensem and it had been increased to Rs. 1,543 per mensem and further
enhanced to Rs. 2,898 per mensem by the letter dated 17/18-7-1981 of the
Assistant Director of Estates addressed to the respondent: (iii) there is nothing
on record to show that the obligation imposed upon respondent by the first
notification to vacate the Government accommodation within three months
from !st of October, 1975 and by the special order dated 22-1-1976 by 31st
December, 1975 has been withdrawn; (iv) the respondent has an option to con-
tinue to occupy the Government accommodation subject to certain obligations
contained in the two notifications without vacating the Government accommoda·
tion within a period of three months from 1st of October, 1975 and (v) it is not
open t.o the apoellants to compel the respondent to exercise his option and con-
tinue to occupy the Government accommodation in order that he may continue to
occupy the premises in question as the tenant. [64 E-H, 65 A-BJ
Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P.T. Menghani and Anr., [1977] 3 S.C.R.
312 referred to.
E
K.D. Singh v. Shri Hari Babu Kanwal, [1980] 1 RCR 90, overruledExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.