Delhi High Court
Budh Ram vs Banwari Lal on 6 April, 1971
Equivalent citations: 1971RLR7
JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, J.
(1) This is tenant's second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal up holding the Order of eviction of the tenant passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
(2) The tenant had taken on rent premise no. 4307, Gali Bhairon Wali, Delhi for residential purposes,, He built a house in Sahibabad Colony, which is situated at a distance of about 10 miles from Delhi. The Landlord filed an application for his ejectment on the ground, amongst others, that the tenant has built and acquired vacant possession of a residence in Sahibabad colony. The tenant admitted the construction of the said house but contended that his case did not fall under clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller negatived his contention and ordered his ejectment. His appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal was also,dismissed.
(3) The short question for-determination is "whether a tenant, who has built or acquired vacant possession of a house for his residence outside Delhi would fall under clause (h) of the proviso to Section 14(I) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.' Section 14(1)(h) is as under : "NOTWITHSTANDING anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make ah order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely : that the tenant, has, whether before or after the commence- ment of this Act built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a residence."
(4) This clause makes a tenant liable for eviction if he has built a house for residence. But can it be said. that he would be liable for eviction if he has built a house for residence anywhere in India : or is it that he becomes liable for eviction if he has built the house in the area to which this Act extends.
(5) The rapid growth of population of Delhi resulting in a serious shortage of housing accommodation resulted in un proportionately high rents. Landlords were tempted to terminate the tenancies of the existing tenants and ask for their eviction in order to let out premises to the 'new tenants at exhorbitant rents. In order tp meet the situation necessary legislation for controlling the rent and eviction of tenants was enacted. As the preamble of this Act shows it was enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions in certain areas in the Union territory of Delhi. The underlying object of section 14(1)(h) was that in view of the growing shortage of housing accommodation in Delhi, a tenant should not be allowed to have more than one house for residence in Delhi. It was provided that in case a tenant built a residence, the land-lord could get his house vacated. It would not have been the intention that a tenant should not have another house for residence anywhere in India. Usually a person has a house, may be in a village in remote corner of the country. To put his tenancy in jeopardy in Delhi for that reason is unawarranted. Section 1(2) of the Act lays down the areas of Delhi to which the Act extends, which does not include rural areas within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is thus reasonable to infer that before a tenant becomes liable to ejectment under section 14(1)(h), it should be proved that he has built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a residence within the areas to which this Act extends.
(6) The learned counsel for the landlord contends that if the tenant builds a residence anywhere in India, he would make himself liable for eviction. Reliance is placed on an un-reported decision of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No. 303-D of 1958 Kishan Chand Bhargava V. Harir Nath Rastogi decided on 31st October, 1961. In this case the learned Single Judge was interpreting Section 13(1)(h) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which was exactly in the same words as clause [h] referred to above, except that the word "suitable" before the word "residence" has been omitted in the present clause. 1 find that in this case the attention of the learned Judge was not drawn to the fact that the Act extended only to those areas of Delhi, which were mentioned therein.
(7) The result is that the house built'by the tenent being in an area to which the Act does not extend, he cannot be evicted on the ground mentioned in S. 14[1][h] of the Act.
(8) The appeal, therefore, is accepted and the order of the Rent Control Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there wilt be no , order as to costs.