Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court of India

Shafait All Through Supreme Courtlegal ... vs Shiva Mal (Dead) By Lrs on 31 July, 1987

Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 214, 1987 SCR (3) 689, AIR 1988 SUPREME COURT 214, 1988 3 SCC 728, 1988 (2) RENCR 274, 1988 (1) LANDLR 428, (1987) 2 RENCR 274, (1988) IJR 25 (SC), 1987 2 UJ (SC) 544, 1987 (3) SCC 728, (1987) 2 LANDLR 433, (1987) 2 RENCJ 373, (1987) 2 RENTLR 585, (1987) 3 SCJ 392, (1988) 34 DLT 354

Author: Sabyasachi Mukharji

Bench: Sabyasachi Mukharji, G.L. Oza

           PETITIONER:
SHAFAIT ALl THROUGH SUPREME COURTLEGAL AID COMMITEE

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
SHIVA MAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/07/1987

BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:
 1988 AIR  214		  1987 SCR  (3) 689
 1987 SCC  (3) 728	  1987 SCALE  (2)186
 CITATOR INFO :
 R	    1988 SC 214	 (1)


ACT:
     Delhi  Rent Control Act, 1958--ss. 14(1)(e),  14A,	 25A,
25B  and 25C--Whether special provisions--ss.  14(1)(e)	 and
14A--Whether any difference between them either on principle
or  in law--Proceedings under ss. 14(1)(e) and	14A--Whether
Slum   Areas   (Improvement   and   Clearance)	 Act,	1956
applicable--Whether permission of Competent Authority  under
ss. 19(1)(a) necessary before instituting suit for eviction.



HEADNOTE:
    The	 Appellant  was	 ordered  to  be  evicted  under  s.
14(1)(e)  of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the  ground
of bona fide requirement of the landlord.
Dismissing the Appeal, to this Court,
    HELD:  1. Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C  of	 the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, are special provisions so	 far
as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in view
of  the non-obstante clause in the section these  provisions
over-ride  the existing law so far as the new  procedure  is
concerned. Therefore, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clear-
ance) Act, 1956, would have no application in cases  covered
by  ss. 14A and 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act especially in	view
of  the provisions which were added by the Amending  Act  of
1976. [690D-F]
    2. There is no difference either on principle or in	 law
between	 s.  14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent  Act	even  though
these  two  provisions relate to eviction of  tenants  under
different situations. [690F]
     3.	 In  view of the procedure in Chapter III-A  of	 the
Rent  Act,  the	 Slum Act is rendered  inapplicable  to	 the
extent	of  inconsistency and it is not	 necessary  for	 the
landlord  to  obtain permission of the	Competent  Authority
under s. 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a	suit
for  eviction  and coming within s. 14(1)(e) or 14A  of	 the
Rent Act. [690G-H]



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3. 1982 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Rev. No. 147 of 1982. W.A. Quadri and Kailash Mehta for the Appellant. M.C. Dhingra for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated the 16th March, 1982 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1982 directing eviction of the premises in question under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. The special leave was sought for and obtained from this Court on the ground that Civil Appeal No. 1051/81 and special leave petition (civil) No. 2290/82 were pending at that time. It appears that the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 614 where this Court held that Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in view of the non-obstante clause in the section these provi- sions override the existing law so far as the new procedure is concerned. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in cases covered by Sections 14A and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.

This Court held that there is no difference either on principle or in law between section 14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations.

This Court further held that in view of the procedure in Chapter IIIA of the Rent Act, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within Section 14(1)(e) or 14A of the Rent Act. In the premises the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

The decree for eviction shall not be executed before 30.11.87 provided the appellant files an undertaking in the usual form within four weeks from today.

A.P.J.						      Appeal
dismissed.
692