LexOM PRAKASH GUPTA versus RATTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l S.C.R. SUPREME GOUR T REPORTS 259 1962 peculiar circumstances of each case for the exercise f'f discretion. It is sufficient to say that we find <10 reason to interfere with the Tribunal's direction in this case that the reliefs given by it would become effective from the date of the reference. The Hindustan Times Ltd., N1w Delhi We therefore allow both the appeals in part by modifying the Tribunal's award as regards dearness allowance, leave rules and retirement age and also as regards the adjustment of the interim relief as mentioned above. In all other matters in appeal before us the award is confirmed. The modi- fications made as regards dearness allowance will, as already stated, take effect from April l, 1959. The modifications as regards leave rules and as regards retirement age will take effect from this date. In both the appeals the parties will bear their own costs. Appeals allowed in part. OM PRAKASH GUPTA • v. RATTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER (B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Rent Control-Tenant availing benefit-Denyinq relation- ship-Jurisdiction of Rent Controller-Delhi Rent Control Act (Act LIX of 1958), '· 15. The appellant was sought to be evicted by the landlord on the ground that be had habitually defaulted in the payment of rent as well as on the ground of the bonafide requirement of the land-lord for his own occupation. He resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the premises had been let to the v. Their Wor~m111 Das Gupta. J 1962 December, 17 1962 Om Prakash Gupta v. Rat1a11 Singh 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. All India Postal R. M. S. Union for office-cum-residential purposes and that the tenancy of the Union had not been termi- nated and that the rent had not been demanded from the Union. The appellant was directed to deposit the arrean of rent UP·t<rdate as also to go on depositing the fllture rent accruing due month by month. The respondent applied umler 3. lj(7) of the Ar.t for striking out the defence of the appell1nt on the ground that he had failed to comply with the orders directing him to deposit the rent. Rejecting the explanation of the appellant the Additional Rent Controller ordered the defence of the appellant to be struck out onjuly 26, 1961, and proceeded to pass an ex-parte decree for eviction. The appel- lant \Vent in appeal against the order striking out the defence which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal both on the ground rhat it \Vas barred by tirne as also on n1crits on M•rch G, 1961. The appellant did n·>t take the m~tter in further appeal to the High Court. Against the decree for eviction the appellant went to the Rent Control Tribunal which dismisseol the appeal. The ap?ellant went in further appeal to the High ~ourt which also dismissed the appeal summarily. On special leave, it was contended that the appellant having denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction in the matter. l/eld, that undr.r the Rent Control Law, the special tribunal has to proceed on the basis of the relationship of land- lord and tenant existing bet .... ·ccn the parties but a rr1ere denial by the tenant of the tenancy would not s11fficc to oust the jurisdicti<in of the special tribunal. It is only \vhen the tribu- nal conies to the conclusion that such a relationship did not exist that it \vill have no jurisdiction. • l/elrl, further, that the provisions of s. 15 read with the definition of "landlord"' enable the Rent Controller to deter- mine the question of the relationship of lan<llord and tenant for the benefit of the tonant and when a party has im·itcd the Rent Controller to apply the provisions of s. 15 for his benefit and the Rent Controller does so, he is deemed to have decided such a person is a tenant. ·rhc proper course for a ~rson plcadin~ that he was not a tenant would be to raise the pica and walk out of the proceedings and not to submit to jurisdiction. Held, further, that the appellant not having taken the matter of striking out his defence under s. 15(7) In appeal to the High Court the question of his beiug a tenant or otherwise had become final and could not be reagitated. 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 261 CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDIOTJCN: Civil Appeal No. 541 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 31, 1962, of the Punj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.