UMESH VERMA versus JAI DEVI BHANDARI AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 14-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UMESHVERMA 
A 
v. 
JAi DEVI BHANDARI AND ANR. 
MAY 14, 1998. 
[G.T. NANA VA TI AND S.P. KURDUKAR. JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act-1958-S. 14 C Right to Govt. servants to 
immediately recover their property which has been let out, for their own C 
use-Relates to the two categories of landlords-A Govt. servant who has 
already retired or one who is to retire within a year and not with the 
question of who is the actual tenant-The only defence that can be raised 
by a tenant facing eviction is to question the bona tides, or that the landlord 
does not fall into the categories of Govt. servants mentioned in the section- D 
In case of dispute about the actual tenant, eviction petition can be filed by 
making both, the person whom the landlord thinks is his tenant and the 
person who is in possession of the property and claims to be the tenant, as 
parties.--Ss 14 (I) (e), 14 B, 14 D, 25A, B&.C. 
A Govt. servant who had let out his premises, filed an eviction petition E 
before the Rent Controller claiming that he wanted the premises for his 
residence, on his retirement. The Respondents objected to it on technical 
grounds viz that it was the respondent No 2 who was the tenant and not 
Respondent No 1, and also that being joint family property, the landlord could 
not file an eviction petition by himself, and there was no bona fide need. The F 
Rent Controller found that both the conditions required under Section 14 C 
were satisfied but not the third condition since there was a dispute about the 
landlord tenant relationship. The Revision Petition was dismissed by the 
High Court on a technical ground, holding that if respondent No. 2 was the 
tenant, then petition against Respondent No 1 would fail as only respondent 
No 1 is stated to be the tenant in the petitior;. Before this Court, it was G 
pointed out on behalf of the appellants that both the respondents had been 
made parties to the eviction petition. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Under Section 14 C right has been conferred upon two H 
471 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A categories of landlords to recover immediate possession of premises let out 
by them. The first category consists of landlords who are retired employees 
of the Central Government or of Delhi administration and the second category 
consists of the landlords who are employees of the Central Government or 
the Delhi Administration and who have a period of less than one year 
preceding the date of their retirement. If such landlords apply within the 
B specified time they become entitled to recover immediate possession of the 
premises let out by them if the said premises are required by them for their 
own residence. This being the nature of the right or the claim of the landlord 
the scope of defence that can be raised by the tenant becomes restricted. In 
an application filed under section 14 B or 14 C or 14 D there cannot be any 
C defence unconnected with on unrelated to the claim of right of the applicant. 
Therefore, in an application filed under Section 14 C the contention which 
the tenant can raise is that the applicant is not the type of landlord referred 
to in section 14 C or that his claim of requirement of the premises is not 
bona fide. In such an application it would be irrelevant to consider as to who 
out of the respondents to the application is the tenant so long as all of them 
D are joined as respondents in that application. The right of the landlord is to 
recover immediate possession of the premises and, therefore, if he joins as 
respondent the person who according to him is the tenant and also the person 
who claims to be the real tenant and in possession of the premises then the 
dispute as to who is the real tenant loses all its relevance. The Rent Controller 
E and the High Court failed to consider this aspect and the law laid down in 
Surjit Singh Kalras Case. Moreover, in view of the fact that Respondent No. 
l who according to the appellant is the tenant and Respondent no 2. who 
claims to be the tenant are wife and husband respectively and are residing 
together in the premises which have been let out, they ought not to have been 
given leave to defend the application on the ground that there was bona fide 
F and substantial dispute as to who out of the two is the tenant of the landlord. 
[477-B-G) 
Surjit Singh Ka/ra v. Union of India, [1991) 2 SCC, 87, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 

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