LexLIAQ AHMED AND ORS. versus SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
LIAQ AHMED AND ORS.
'-{
v.
SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN
APRIL 28, 2000
">
B
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Rent Control & Eviction :
j-
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14(l()e) r/w Section 25-B-
c
Petition under-Leave to defend-Grant of-Rent Controller-Jurisdiction of-
Held, if tenant discloses ground and pleads a cause which prima f acie is not
baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is obliged to grant him leave to
defend-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder XXXVII-Enemy Properties Act,
1968-Section 18-Evacuee Property Act.
..
D
Rent Control Legislation-Legislative intent-Are intended to preserve
social environment and promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of
.,..
the tenants.
In.terpretation of Statute-Rent Control Law-Interpretation of-H<:ld,
should be by keeping in mind the object of the legislation-Where the Rent Acts
E
afford a real and sanctified protection to the tenant, the same should not be
~ "-
nullified by giving a hyper-technical or liberal construction to the language of
the statute.
Respondent claiming to be the owner of the property in question on
F
the basis ofa sale deed, filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona.fide
requirement. The appellant opposed the petition on the ground that the
property is vested in the Custodian of Enemy Properties of India, which
)-
could not be alienated or sold to the respondent, along with other grounds.
The Rent Controller did not grant him leave to defend and rejected the
plea of the appellants, considering an order dated 30th March, 1954 passed
G
by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) in relation to the premises whereby it
was declared as non-evacuee property.
\
~
High Court confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that they are the
H
tenant of the property having a right to resist the claim of the respondent
800
_, ~
LIAQ AHMED v. SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN
801
7
and they relied on Exhibit P-1, an intimation by the Custodian of Enemy
A
Property for India to the grandfather of the appellants to the effect that
the property had vested in the Custodian of the Enemy Property for India.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The Controller as well as the High Court appear to have
B
completely ignored the object of the Rent Control legislation and the
i
scheme of the Act while dealing with the case of the appellants. The
Controller was obliged to grant the leave and after affording the parties
..
opportunity, adjudicate the rival claims. Thus the orders of the Rent
Controller and that of the High Court suffers from inherent legal infirmi-
c
ties which are required to be set aside. (804-D; 805-G]
1.2. From the scheme or the Delhi Rent Control Act, it is evident that
-t
....
if tenant disclo~es ground and pleads a cause which prima facie is not
baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is obliged to grant him
leave to defend his case against the eviction sought by the landlord. The
D
enquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary enquiry to primafacie find
out the existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the tenant. If the
tenant brings to the notice of the Controller, such facts as would disentitle
->.
the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession, the Con-
troller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of
E
~
facts and not the proof of the facts. [804-B-D]
2. Rent Controller filed to see the distinction between the Evacuee
Property Act under which- the order dated 30th March, 1954 was passed
and the Enemy Property Act, 1968 regarding which letter Exhibit P-1 was
issued intimating that the property, the subject matter of the litigation, had
F
--(
vested in the Custodian of Enemy Properties for India. (805-E]
3.1. The Rent Acts are intended to preserve social environment and
promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of the tenants mainly
and at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the landlords.
G
The provisions of the Rent Acts; therefore, may result in frustrating the
~
object for which the legislation W&S made. It should be kept in mind that
the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose
benefit they were essentially passed. The rational approach in intepreting
the law relating to the control of rents is expected from the courts dealing
\vith the cases under the statutes relating to rent byExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.