LexRAVI DUTT SHARMA versus RATAN LAL BHARGAVA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,
A
614
B
c
•
F
G
H
\
RAVI DUTT SHARMA
' '
v.
RATAN LAL BHAR.GAVA
•
February 20, 1984 '..
'•
S, MuRTAZA FAzAL Au: A. VARADARAJAN & R,N. MISRA, Jl l
•
Constitution of India 1950, Article 14: Sections 14A, 25A and 25B of Delhi
Rent Control Act 1958 whether ultra vires Article 14:
,
Slull) Areas·([nif,rovement and Clearance~·.A~t-1956, s, 19 Delhi.. Rent Contr~l
Act 1958, Ss.14 (!) (e), 14A, 25A, 25B & 25C: suit by landlord for eviction of
tenant under s.14.(1) (e) or s.l4A of the Rent Act-prior permiss(on ofCompetant
Authority urider Slun1 Clearance Act-Whether necessarr.
~ ..
'-.
The appt::hant-tenant was induct~ into the suit prenrises as for b~ck as 194~.
'
.:..-
~·
The respondent landlord a,pplied _under section 19 _(!)(a) of the Slum Areas Irilprovc-.
\
~:..,
ment and Clearance) Act 1956 before the Competent Authority for pennitting .him_ J
to institute a suit for eviction ·or the appellant but that application was dismissed.
·I aod thC order was confirn1ed ill appeal by the Financial Conunissioner: ·Thereafter
the re·spondelit field a1 suit for eviction in April 197!? under section 14 (1) (e) read
with seCtiori 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The tenant applied for leave ...
"'to defend the suit but the same was rejected ·and an order of eviction was passed
A revision filed by the ten~n~ Jin the High' Court was dismissed.
-
"
. '·
'n the appe~l to this Court .fs ~el1 as in the connected Special LeaV"e Petition
lt, \Vas.contended that: (1) under seetion 19 (1) (a) or the Slum Act it is incumbent
on the landlord to obtain iJenni36ion frQm the Competent Authority before insti~ .
tution of a suit for evicting a tenant and without such permission the suit . was no
"'
1naintainable, and (2) sections 25A and 2~'.B were ultra vires of ·Article 14 of the
Constitution aud \Vere inconsisterit wit~ the Slun1 Act which was· an existing Statute·
and, ,therefote, the prqcedure substituted under: Chapter, IIlA, particularly sections
25A and 25B should be invaljdated.
·
~
\
DiSmissi~ the Appeal and Spcciill Leave Petition;
• IF
:
•
I
'
RAX' o·uTr v. )lATAN LAL
615
. , HELD: A.(i) The High Court was
cotre~t in rejecting the applications of
'A
~
the ten~nts-for setting as_idc the ofder·;-ef eviction.
['624
1.§] -
.
~..
'
, B.(l). s~ctions 14A; 25A;25B firld 25C Of the Rent Act arc sPecial ·~revisions so
far as the landlord and tenant arc concerned an,f in view Of. the non~obstante clause
th~se proviSions ~verridc the existing- la\V So far as. the neW procedure· is ~oncemed; ·
.[624Al
B
'
,J..._. (2) Thef; is lio._differenCe ei_ther on principle or in Ia_w· between sections 14
(l)(e) and 14A of the Rent A~t even though these two: proviSio~s rdate to Cviction.
of tenants under different situationS; [624B]
' .
(3) ;-,The prOccdtire inca'fporated in Ch~pter IIIA ·ar· _th~ A~ending Act into
the Rent Act is in public .. interest and is not vlotatiye- of Artir.fe 14 ·of the Constitu:.
·ti on; [624C]
·
'
·
•
::t:
.--
•
. ·"{ . ....,.
'·
,/
-
.
\
.
. (4) ~1n vieW of the prOcedure in Ch3pter IIIA of the Rent Act, thC Slum Act
i~ reqdered inapplicabJe to· the extent of inconsiStency and it is· not; therefore, neces~ -
sary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Compc~ent Authority_ undCr s. 19
· (i)(a): of· ihe Slum· Act. before 'ihstitufing a sUit for evicti-00 arid corning _within .s.14
_(.l)(e) or 14A of the Rent Act.. [624D-E]
·
C.(1) The_dominant object of' the Amending~Act ~f 1976 was to provide a
speCdy, expeditio-us -and effect ieffiedy ·for a.' claS:s of landlords contemplated 9Y seC-
sections 14(1)(e) and J4A and foi avOidinf'unusual dilatorY process pfOvided other.,
wise by the Rcq.t·Act. Suiis'for evicti6n.under the Act take a Jong_time commc'ncing
·with the Rent eOntroller arid ehctlng up with" thO ~.upn .. Jnc- COurt.· ln many ca~es
by 'the 'time. thC eviction decree becanie final several :years elapsed and either 1:the
.
~ -
•)
'
'
landlord died or the necessity which provided the cause of action disappeared. It
waS this n1ischief Which the.legisl_ature intended _to ayoid by incorporatingthe·.new
procedure in Chapier IDA: It cannot therefore be said that ·the tlilssification of
sue~ landlords- ·wouid be an ureasonaPle one because such a classification has. got
a clear ·nexus withlith_e objects of the Alnending Act ·or 1976 and tP,e purpos·es which-~
it seeks to · subServe. [619D-F; G]
·
·. · -.
·, ·Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.