LexPRECISION STEEL AND ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANOTHER versus PREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B E F G • JJ 498 PRECISION STEEL AND El~GINEERING WORKS AND ANOTEER v. .PREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL October 7, 1982 [D.A. DBSAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] Delhi Rent Conlfol :Act, 1958-Sub-s. (5) of S. 258 read with Clouse ( e) of . . f' - proviso to S. 14( !)-Jurisdiction of Controller-Grant of leave to tenant to contest . landlord's application for eviction-Nature and scope of. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sub-S. (I) of S. 31-Not attracted at the stage of considering affidavit of tenant seeking leave to contest under sub-s. (5) of s.2so: ' Code of CM/ Procedure, 1908-0. XXXV!l, rule 3(5) and De/ht Rent Con- trol Act, 1958-S. 25B(5J~Jurisdiction to grant /eaVe-Comparison of., Re1tt restriction legislation-Approach to interpretation of. Laws of procedure-Approach to interprela!ion of. A landlord cab make an application for recovery of possession under Clause (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground that the premises let for residential purposes· are required by him bona fide for occupation as-a residence for himself or for any me(I!.ber of bis family dependent upon him, provided be has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Sub·s. (5) of s. 25B lays down that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application, if the affidavit filed by the tenant "discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining on order for recOvery of posstssion" of the premises on the ground specified in Cl. (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1). The respondent, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed a petition under Cl. (e) of proviso to s. 14(1) through the constituted attorney of its karta for an order for recovery of possession of the premises in question alleging that the premises had initially been given to the .appellant on leave and licence, that the landlord (the karta of the HUF) who had gone out of the country had since settled down in Delhi, that the landlord bad called upon the appellant 'in May, 1974 to vacate the l'remises as be had no otbcr suitable accommodation and that , . .. > • • PRECISION STEEL, V. PREM DEVA 499, the landlord bona fide required the same for hiS personal'occ~pation. The appel- lant SOU;ght leave 'tO cont~~t the petitioll and filed an affidavit denying the allega- tioi;i that it bad entered the premises initially as a licensee and.contending that accbrding to cl. 6. of the lease agreement the premises Were let for residential as well as comme'rcial pufpose, that the landlord ·had been 'residing in a house as ¥' spa~ious as the demised premises and equa.lly spacious accommodation 1in an idehtical unit located at the back side of the demised premises was available to . hirh which had beeri let successively to three tenants during tho period 1970 to ' 197,6, each· time ~:Hsing the rent, and further-that .the landlOrd owned spacious acCommodation at. another place in Delhi. An affidavit in reply was filed on be'half of the landlord slating that the landlord had no interest in the building in · vAiich he was residing, that the identical· unit located on the back side of the ~cm.ised premises had been let to a tenant upto 19_81 and that the accommodation / ~ocated at anot~er place in Delhi and referred to by the appellant was only a t' . ; garage block. · The Controller decided all questions of fact t'aking the affidavits as un- questioned evidenc~ and· refu'sed to grant · teave to the appellant to contest thC petition and passed an order of ev'iction in favour of the landlord. The revision , . petition filed by the appellant against· the order was rejected by the High Court. · · ' The question before the court was : What is the jurisdiction of the Con- troller un~er Sub-s. (5) of.s.25B while dealing with. an affidavit of the tenant seeIC- ing leave to contest an application fof eviction filed by a landlord under ·cl. (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1) · 1 · Allowing the appeal, HELD : (By the Full Court) Leave to contest the petition for evictiOn under ct: (e) of proviso to S.14(1) must be granted to the appellant under sub s. (5)'of sub-s. 25B 1 of the Delhi Rent . ' I Control Act, J958. ~ ( pttr Desai a_nd Baharul Islam, JJ.) . ~. 1. (a) While examining the question whether leave to defend ought or ough not to be granted, the limited jurisdiction which the Controller enjoys is prescribed, within well defined limits. ·The langtiage
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.