NARAIN KHAMMAN versus PARDUMAN KUMAR JAIN

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 19-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.• 
NARAIN KHAMMAN 
v • 
. PARDUMAN KUMAR JAIN 
October 19, 1984 
[D.A. DESAI AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 Section J4A(l)-Scope of. 
Landlord-Government servant-Required by general order to vacate 
Government accommodation on ground of owning residential accammodation-
to recover possession of residential premises under Section )4A(l) landlord 
to be in occupation of allotted accommodation on date of filing eviction petition 
-If landlord owns other premises which are available for residential accommo-
dation petition under section l 4A (J) not maintainable. 
The Appellant was a tenant of the Respondent. 
The Respondent w3s 
io Central Government service and was allotted Government residential 
accommodation. 
By a general order. the Government directed that all 
Government servants who bad their own dwelling 
houses at the place of 
posting should vacate the Government accommodation allotted to them or 
in default to pay market rent in respect thereof. 
The Respondent there-
fore VJ.Cated the Government accommodation allotted to him and resided 
in another premise belonging to him which was adjoining the premises let 
out to the Appellant. 
The Respondent lat.er filCd ao application under section 258 of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground specified in section 14A(J) 
thereof for possession of the premises occupied by the Appellant which 
was contested. 
The Rent Controller after con&idering the accommodation 
in the respective occupation of the parties held that it could not be said that 
the premises occupied by the Respondent constituted reasonably suitable 
residential accommodation. 
He further held, that section 14A(l) of the 
Act did not contain a condition that the Government servant who made 
an application 
under section 14A(t) should not be in possession of 
reasonably suitable alternative accommodation as was the case under 
clause (e) or the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 3 and that even 
if such a factor were to be taken into consideration it could not be said 
that the Respondent was in occupation of reasonably suitable alternative 
accommodation. 
The Rent Controller therefore passed an order of evic· 
tion against the Appellant and directed it not to be executed for a period 
of two months. 
This order was confirmed by the High Court in the revision 
petition filed by the Appellant under section 25B(8). 
In the Appeal to this Court tho maintainability of the eviction petition 
was impugned on behalf of the Appellant on two grounds : (!) the B.cspon. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
. 
H 
1026 
Stli'J.EltE COliB.T ilBPORts 
[1985] l s.c.1.t 
A 
dent was not in occupation of the government accommodatio[) allotted to 
him on the date when be filed his application, and (2) on the dcite when be 
filed his application, the Respondent was already residing in 
premises 
belonging to him. 
B 
c 
Allowing the Appeal, 
HELD : 
A. ( l) It is not necessary that a person in occupation of 
residential premises allotted to him by the C..:atral Government or a local 
authority who i; required by or in pursuance of a general or sp~cial order 
made by that. Government or authority to vacate such accommodation or, 
in default, to incur certain obligations, such as p1ymeat of market rent, on 
the ground that he owns in the Union Territory of D~lhi a residential 
accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or depen-
dent child should be in occupation of the accommodation allotted to him 
on the date when h~ files an eviction application under section 14A(l) 
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to recover possession of the residen· 
tial premises which be so own's and which bas been let by him. 
. 
[1038 G-H, 1039 A] 
(2) 
If such person bas, however, othor premises which he owns either 
D 
in his own name or in the name of bis wife or dependent child which are avail-
able to him for bis residential acoommodation or into which he has already 
moved, 
he cannot maintain an application under section 14A(1) of 
the Act. [1039 B] 
(3) Even if the other premises 
owned by him tber in his own 
na1ne or in the name of his wife or dependent child are nreasonably 
suit-
E 
able for his accommodation be cannot maintain an application under section 
14A(1) but must filf'I an application on the ground specifiedin clause (e) of 
the proviso to sub-section (l) of section 14 of the Act. [1039 C] 
F 
G 
B. (1) Though the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying 
a legislative Bill c

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