LexS. B. NORONAH versus PREM KUMAR! KHANNA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... • • --io ' • ~ • ·~ , S. B. NORONAH v . PREM KUMAR! KHANNA August 16, 1979 [V. R. KRISHNA lYER AND P. N. SmNGHAL, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 21 scope of-Duty oj the Court in dealing witli applications 1111der Section 21, expfai11ed. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court HELD: Section 21 of the: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 carves out a category for special treatment. While no landlord can evict without compliance \vith sections 14, 19 and 20 of the Act, a. liberal eviction policy cannot be said to under-lie in section 21. Parliament was presumably keen on maximising accommodation available for letting, realising the scarcity crisis. One source of such spare accommodation which is usually shy is potentially vacant building or part thereof which the landlord is able to let out for a strictly limited period provided he has some credible assurance that when he needs he \vill get it back. The law seeks to persuade the o\vner of the premises available for letting for a particular period by giving him a special assurance that at the expiry of that period the appointed agency wil1 place the landlord in vacaint possession. And·,.. Section 21 confines the special remedy to letting for residential uses only. Parlia- n1cnt had the wholesome fear that if the section were not controlled by 1nany conditions it n1ight open the floodgates for wholesale circun1vention of the rent control legislations by ingenious landlords exploiting the agonising ne'ed of houseless denirens. [285B-D, G-H, 286A] 2 .. Section 21 over-rides se~ion 14 precisely because it is otherwise hedged in with dra-stic lin1itations and safeguards itself against landlords' abuses. The first condition is that the landlord docs not require the demised pren1ises "for a particular period" only. This means that he n1ust indicate to the authority before \\'hich sanction is sought for letting what is the particular prriod for \vhich he can spare the accommodation. The Controller exercises an important regtrla·tory function on behalf of the community. The fact that a landlord and a potential tenant together apply, setting out the formal ingrcdi~nts of Section 21, does not relie,·e the Controller from being vigilant to inquire and satisfy himscJf about the requisites of the landlord's non-requirement "for a particular period" and the letting itself being "as a resident". A fraud on the statute cr111not he permitted especin·lly hecause of the grave niischief that n1ay be perpt:trated in such event, [286E, H, 287 A-DJ 3. There would be a terrible blow to the rent control law if section 21 \\'ere freely permitted to subvert the scheme of Section 14. Every 13.ndlord will insist on a tenant going through the formal exercise of Section 21, making ideal averments in ferm.s of that Set'.tion. The con~quence will be that both the Civil Procedure Code \Vhich prescribes suits for recovery of possession and the Delhi Rent ·control Act 'vhich prescribes grounds for eviction will be eclipsed by the pervasive operation of Section 21. Neither grounds for eviction nor suits for eviction wilt thereafter be needed, and if the la-ndlord moves the Court B c n E F G H 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l s.c.R. A for a mere warrant to place the landlord, through the Court process, in vacant possession of the premises, he gets it. No courtwfee, no decree, no execution petition, no termination of tenancy-wish for possession and the court is at your command. Such a horrendous situation will be the negation of the ruie of Jaw in this area. [287 D-F] B c D E F 4. When an application under Section 21 is filed by the landlord and/or tenant the Controller must satisfy himself by such inquiry as he may inake, about the compulsive requirements of that provision. If he makes a mindless order, the Court, when challenged at the time of execution \Vill go into the question as to whether the twin conditions for saaiction hav11 really been fulfilled. Of course, there will be a presumption in favour of the sanction being regular, but it \vill still be open to a pa.rty to make out his ca<;e that in fa<:t and in tn1th the conditions which make for a valid sanction were not present. [287 G-H, 288A] 5. The sanction granted under section 21, if it has been procured by fraiud and collusion cannot withstand invalidity because, otherwise, high public policy will be given as hostage to success
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.