NIHAL CHAND versus KALYAN CHAND JAIN

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 15-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NJllAL CHAND 
v. 
KALYAN CHAND JAIN 
November 15, 1977 
LN. L. lJNTWALIA AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] 
183 
A 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, S. 144(1) rec¢/ with s. 25 [BJ-Construction 
B 
of S. 14A(l)-Cause of action to sue u/s 14A(l) when 'accrues'. 
Pursuant to the decision of the Government dated September 9, 1975 that 
Government servants who owned houses in their own names or in the name of 
their fan1ilie:; and \Vere occupying Government accommodation should be re-
quired to vacate Government accommodation allotted to them within :hree 
months from 1st October 1975 and that in default of their vacating Govern-
ment accon1modation by December 31, 1975, they should be charged enhanced 
licence fee at the market rates, the appellant, landlord a GovernIDent servant 
C 
who was in occupation of a government accommodation bearing No. ll·ll/ 
791 situated at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi was also served with a general 
Order dated Sept. 30, 1975 to that effect. 
The appellant, 
who in 
his 
own name owned a two and half storied residential house bearing No. W·43, 
Green Park, New Delhi filed an application u/s 14A(l) read with S. 25B 
of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1975 (No. 24 of 1975) 
for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the first floor of his house, on 
the ground that he had been asked to vacate the Government accommodation 
D 
on account of his owning a house in the Uniol\ Territory of Delhi and 
had incurred an obligation to pay penal licence fee in default. 
Jn response 
to the Sl!!llmons served upon him, the respondent·tenant filed, on January 
16, 1976, an application supported by a detailed affidavit seeking leave to 
contest and defend the case on various grounds .viz.: (1) The summary 
procedure provided u/s 25B 
\Vas available not for an application filed 
u/s 14A(l) but only for an application seeking eviction u/s 14(1)(e) uf 
the Delhi Rent Control Act, (ii) Even othenvise since according to the 
landlord's own showing he had retired from Government service on November 
E 
30, 197 5 and v.·as therefore, liable to vacate the Government accommodation, 
the application u/s 14A(1) was not maintainable, in other words S. 14A(l) 
\Vas not meant for a retired Government servant or a Government servant 
who was· transferred outside Delhi; (iii) The application seeking his eviction 
was not filed bona fide inasmuch as the appellant·landlord had earlier filed 
an application No. 497 /1975 seeking respondent's eviction from the premises 
on the ground of bona fide personal requirement u /s 14 ( 1) ( c) which had 
been di~mi&sed by the Additional Rent Controller on December 17, 1975; 
(iv) The application for eviction was wholly mala fide because the premises 
F 
were let out initially at a rent of Rs. 300 /- per month which was increased 
lo Rs. 350,'. per month w.e.f. October 1, 1971 and thereafter it was further 
increased to Rs. 400 /· per month and further because when the ground floor 
µremises of the house in question had fallen vacant on two occasions 
prior t0 the filing of the application the landlord instead of himself occupying 
the said premises had let out the same at higher rents. _The appellant land· 
lord ref 1_1tei.I these contentions and explained the 
circumstances why lie bad 
let out rorti0ns of his house after these had fallen vacant during the pen-
dency of his earlier eviction application and prior to his filing the instant 
G 
application. 
By his crder dated August 11, 1976, the Rent Controller Delhi, negatived 
all the contentions urged by the Respondent·tenant, 
rejected his 
prayer for 
granting leave to contest and defend the proceedings and passed an order of 
eviction against him u/s 14A(l) directing the respondent to deliver vacant 
possession of the premises in his occupation to the appellant-landlord within 
t\vO months from the date of the order. The Revision applications file.cl by 
the mpondent was allowed by the Delhi High 
Court which 
held: 
(I) 
H 
S. 14A' 1) would not be available to a landlord who was an allottee of !he 
Governn1ent accommodation of whose allotment was liable to be cancelled 
by virtue of his retirement from service or transfer outside Delhi. 
(ii) Tue 
.A 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1 g.j 
~l:fRL\1E COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 
pro\ 1s1on ( .i S. 14.\ ( 1) :is also the su1nmary procedure provided u/s 25B of 
the Act \Vere extraordinary provisions intended to ensure expeditious eviction 
of tenant: who v.rcre in occupation of residential accommodat

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