Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. With this comparison, we have to see whether the Trial Court was right in considering the plea of the landlords as persons falling under Special Category, by granting the relief of recovery of immediate possession to the landlords.

33. In this regard, we have referred to the following decisions as they deal with circumstances akin to the facts of the present petitions:

V. Rajaswari v. Bombay Tyres International Limited, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 172 J. Chatterjee v. Mohinder Kaur Uppal and Anr., Umesh Verma v. Jai devi Bhandari and Anr., EMC Steel Limited, Calcutta v. Union of India and Anr. with Smt. Santosh Sethi v. Indian Produce Export Corporation and Anr., Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India and Anr. with Mahendra Raj v. Union of India and Colonel Ashoka Puri,
6. Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Taya,
7. P. Suryanarayana (D) By LRs v. K.S. Muddugowramma, 2004 SAR (Civil) 286
8. Smt. K.S. Muddugowramma v. P. Suryanarayana (Dead By LRS) and Ors., 2003 AIR Karnataka HCR 354
9. Jijar Singh v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur,
10. Mannalal Khetan Etc. Etc. v. Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors. Etc., Mannalal Khetah Etc. etc. v. Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors. etc.,

42. The above decisions again deal with Delhi Rent Control Act and also Karnataka Rent Act of 1999 (New Act). The principles laid down in the above decisions are to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Controller is confined to consider the affidavit of the tenant and rejoinder application of the landlord, if any, while entertaining eviction petitions filed by classified persons. In other words, it was HELD, in view of the restrictions conferred on the power of granting leave, if does not contemplate some kind of regular trial. If a question arises whether the oath or affirmation in the affidavit is said to be of a statement made in the application as well as the affidavit or only of the statement made in the affidavit, ultimately, what exactly was the language of the oath embodied in the affidavit would be the relevant consideration while granting the leave. When a statute requires that something shall be done or done in a particular manner or form, without expressly declaring what shall be consequence of non-compliance, the question often arises:: what intention is to be attributed by inference to the legislature ? Where indeed the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do a thing in a particular manner, did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other, no doubt can be entertained as to the intention of the legislature. It is a question of construction in each case whether the legislature intended the person to do a particular act in a particular manner. While comparing the special procedure contemplated Under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act with that of the procedure Under Section 37(1) of the said Act pertaining to general grounds of eviction, the Apex Court in the case of Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Taya (Supra) had an occasion to discuss at length how the court should apply its mind to the issue, whenever a social legislation is made keeping in the mind the sensitive position of certain group of persons. It would be appropriate to narrate the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment, which reads as under: