ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.versusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

                             [2017] 12 S.C.R. 1044



A                  ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.
                                       v.
                  THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 20913 of2017)
B                            DECEMBER 06, 2017
          [J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
            Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 - s. 7(2). 14, 50 - New Delhi
    Municipal Council Act, 1994 - s.67(3), 411 - Whether property tax
    recoverable from the tenant u/s. 67(3) of the New Delhi Municipal
c Council Act, 1994 (NDMC Act) as arrea1:5 of rent by the landlord/
    owner can be considered to be forming part of the rent for the
    purpose of seeking eviction of such tenant who de.fc111lts in payment
    of such recoverable tax as rent - Held: Delhi Rent Control Act is an
  · earlier Act when compared to the NDMC Act, it is a special enactment
D in relation to landlord and tenant issue and has a non-obstante clause
    - It restricts the right of the landlord to evict the tenant at his will -
    Sub-section (2) of s.7 of the Act puts an embargo on the landlord
    not to recover from the tenant any amount of tax on the building or
    land imposed in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant -
    Whereas, NDMC Act is not a special enactment insofar as landlord-
E
    tenant issue is concerned and it contains s. 411 which provides that
    other laws not to be disregarded - S.67(3) of the NDMC Act merely
    gives a right to recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent - It
    does not override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of
    s. 7(2) of the Rent Act - Tax recoverable from the tenant 11/s. 67 (3) of
F the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant cannot be
    considered to be forming part of the rent for seeking eviction of the
    respondent who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rem
    - Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious Construction.
           Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Object of the Act -
G   Interpretation of provisions - Held: It is settled that while
    inteq1reti11g the provisions of this Act, the Courts are under a legal
    compulsion to harmoniously read the provisions of the Act so as to
    balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the tenant
    towards each other, keeping in mind that one of the objects of the

H
                                    1044
    ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                          1045
                INSURANCE CO. LTD.

legislature while enacting the Rent Act was to curb the tendency of A
the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants paying lower rent and
to rent out the premises at the market rate.
       Interpretation of Statlltes - Harmonious Construction - Held:
While the nomial pri11cij1le is that an earlier enactment will prevail
over a latter enactment even if, there is a non-obstante clause in the     B
latter enactment, if it were to be held that the earlier enactment is a
special enactment on the particular subject being in issue -Assuming
that the latter enactment prevailing over the earlier enactment were
to apply ro this case, the two enactments have to be harmoniously
construed so as to ensure that the latter enactment does not cause
violence to the intent of the earlier enactment - Delhi Rent Control       c
Act, 1958 - New Delhi Municip,,/ Council Act, 1994.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: Whether non-payment of property tax recoverable
from the tenant as rent can be a ground for his cvictionlcjectment         D
from the premises
      1. The Delhi Rent Control Act is beneficial and also
restrictive in nature. It is primarily an Act to provide for the
control of rents and evictions. Section 14 occurring in Chapter 3
of the Rent Act provides for controlling of eviction of tenants. It        E
puts an embargo as regards recovery of possession of any
premises at the instance of the landlord unless the Controller
satisfies himself as regards existence of any of the grounds
specifically referred to in the proviso appended thrrcto. [Para
15] [1053-A-C]
                                                                           F
      2. While the normal principle is that the latter enactment
will prevail in cases where the latter enactment has a 11011-obstante
clause, that is, giving it overriding effect and secondly, if it is also
held to be a special enactment with regard to the matter in issue.
In the instant case, the earlier enactment has a no11-obsta11te clause
in Section 14 which grants protection to the tenant from being             G
evicted from any premises "notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order of decree
for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by
any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant."
                                                                           H
1046           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 12 S.C.R.


 A  Thus the earlier enactment which is a special enactment has a
  · non-obstante clause and the latter enactment which is not a special
    enactment as far as landlord-tenant issue is concerned and the
    same docs not have a non-obsta11te clause and in fact, has a section
    namely Section 411 which provides that other laws not to be
 B disregarded. [Para 20] (1054-F-G]
             3. Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a right to
       recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent. It docs not
       override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of Section
       7(2) of the Rent Act. The tax recoverable from tbe tenant under
       Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant
 C     cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose
       of seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondent who defaults in
       payment of such recoverable tax as rent. (Para 28) (1056-H;
       1057-A-B]
             Life· Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur
 D           and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 315 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083;
             Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Viswa Co-operative Housing
             Society Ltd. and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 288 : [1990) 1
             SCR 862 - relied on.
             Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustine (1957) SCR 20;
 E           Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Life Insurance
             Corporation, Bombay (1970) 1 SCC 791 : [1971) 1
             SCR 335; Raju Kakara Shelty v. Ramesh Prataprao
             Shirole (1991) 1 SCC 570 : (1991) 1 SCR 51;
             D.C. Bhatia v. ()nion ofIndia (1995) 1SCC104: [1994)
 F           4 Suppl. SCR 539; Calcutta Gujarati Education Socie(v
             v. Calcutta Municipal C01pn. (2003) 10 SCC 533 :
             [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 915 - held inapplicable.
             Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman ILR (1978) l Delhi page
             139; St. Stephen:~ College v. Unive1:~ity of Delhi (1992)
 G           1 SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121; Gob ind Sugar
             Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 76;
             Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements
             Limited and Am: (2014) 8 SCC 319 : [2014) 3 SCR 1
             - referred to.

 H
   ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                            1047
               INSURANCE CO. LTD.

                        Case Law Reference                                  A
[1957] SCR 20                    held inapplicable        Para 10
[1971] 1 SCR 335                 held inapplicable        Para 10
[1991] 1 SCR 51                  held inapplicable        Para 10
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 539          held inapplicable        Para 10           B

[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 915          held inapplicable        Para 10
I 1981] 1 SCR 1083               relied on                Para 21
[1990] 1 SCR 862                 relied on                Para 22
(1978) 1 Delhi page 139          referred to              Para 9            c
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121          referred to              Para 24
(1999) 1 sec 76                  referred to              Para 24
[2014) 3 SCR 1                   referred to              Para 25
                                                                            D
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20913
of2017.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in RFANo. 480 of2013.        ·
      Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., Bimal Roy Jad, Amit Sethi, Sushi!         E
Kumar Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Puneet Jain, Ms. Poonam, Abhinav Gupta,
Advs. for the Appellant.
      Vikas Singh, Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advs., Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi
Mittal, Kapish Seth,. Ms. Shrishti Banerjee, Gagan Gupta, Ankit Jain,
Avinash Shanna, Ankit Jain, Sachin Jain, Moh it D. Ram, Ms. Monisha         F
Randa, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted.
       2. This appeal involves an important question oflaw as to whether    G
property tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the
N.ew Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short 'NDMC Act') as
arrears of rent by the landlord/owner can be considered to be forming
part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction or cjectment of such
tenant who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent and
                                                                            H
1048             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017) 12 S.C.R..



 A     when the rent including recoverable tax in respect of the tenanted premises
       exceeds Rs.3500/- per month, thereby losing protection of the Delhi
       Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'Rent Act').
          3. The appellant/plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the building known
  · as Atma Ram Mansion (previously known as Scindia House), Connaught
 B Circus, New Dclhi-110001 by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated
    31.5.1980 executed by previous owners in favour of the plaintiff. The
    respondent/defendant has been a tenant in respect of a po1tion of the
    aforesaid prope1ty. The rent of tenanted premises prior to termination of
    tenancy was Rs.1438/- per month exclusive of electricity and water
    charges. The defendant has been paying service tax of Rs.148/- on the
 c said amount of Rs.1438/- and thus the last paid rent was Rs.1586/- per
    month.
           4. Pursuant to the amendment of the New Delhi Municipal Council
    (Determination ofAnnual Rent) Byelaws, 2009, (for brevity 'the Byclaws
    2009') the hotise tax on the properties situated in the New Delhi Municipal
 D Council (for short 'NDMC') area was assessable on the basis of Unit
    Area System. The tenanted premises in occupation of the defendant fell
    within the jurisdiction of NDMC. The house tax payable on the said
    property in accordance with the Unit Arca System comes to Rs.9 ,64, 710/
  · - per annum, i.e. Rs.80,392.50 per month. According to the plaintiff: the
 E defendant was liable to pay the said amount. The plaintiff issued a notice
    dated 6.7.2009 calling upon the defendant to pay the entire house tax or
    pay its monthly installment. However, the defendant neither replied to
    the same nor deposited/paid house tax to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued
    a further notice dated 8.12.2009 calling upon the defendant to pay the
    house tax. The defendant did not come forward to make payment of the
 F house tax. In order to safeguard its property and to avoid any penal
    action, the plaintiff deposited the total house tax ofRs.2,94,23,237/- on
    the basis of self-assessment of the property tax with NDMC. After
    payment of the house tax, the plaintiff again sent a notice dated 7.4.2010
    calling upon the defendant to pay the said amount of tax. The notice was
 G returned with the report "left without address".
          5. According to the plaintiff, the tax paid on the suit property was
    far more than the initial rent, the amount ofproperty tax levied by NDMC
    and the initial rent became recoverable as arrears of rent and the suit
  · property having fetched rent above Rs.3500/- per month has ceased the
 H protection of the Rent Act. As such the pluintiffvide legal notice dated
    ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                                1049
       INSURANCE CO. LTD. (S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

16.6.20 I 0, terminated the tenancy of the defendant without prejudice to        A
its legal rights. The defendant sent a reply dated 23.7.2010 denying its
liability to pay the rent. Therefore, plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a
decree for possession of the tenanted premises, for damages/mesne
profits ofRs.6,24,600/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.2011 till 31.5.2011 and for
directing an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil                 B
Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for assessment of future damages/
mesne profits till the delivery of vacant possession of the tenanted
premises.
                                                     --
        6. The defendant filed the written.statement denying its liability to
pay the enhanced rent. It was contended that the plaintiffhas no authority
or power to increase the rent on its own. It was further contended that c
the tenanted premises is governed by the Rent Act and that the defendant
is a protected tenant. The NDMC bye laws cannot govern the relationship
of landlord and tenant by by-passing the provisions of the Rent Act. It
was further contended that the house tax cannot be treated as arrears
of rent. which takes away the premises from the ambit of the Rent Act. D
It was denied that the premises are governed by the Transfer of Property
Act. It was contended that Section 67 of the NDMC Act speaks of
apportionment of liability of tax when the premises are let out and sub-
let. It is only the right to recover the house tax for which the landlord is
entitled to. He cannot go for eviction of the tenant on any ground which
is not specified under the Rent Act. Therefore, the suit for possession E
filed by the plaintiff in a court other than the court of Rent Controller is
barred by the provisions of Section 50 of the Rent Act.
      7. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Ruic 6 read
with Section 151 of the CPC for passing a decree for possession of the
tenanted premises for the reasons mentioned therein. The defendant               F
opposed the application by filing objections.
       8. The trial Court passed an order dated 12.8.2013 granting decree
of possession of the tenanted premises in favour of the plaintiff. The
High Court by the order dated 30.5.2016 has set aside the order of the
trial Court and has remanded the matter to the trial Court. The appellant        G
has called in question the legality and correctness of the said order in
this appeal.
      9. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff, submits that after coming into force of the Byelaws
                                                                                 H
1050            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) 12 S.C.R.


 A   2009, the property tax in the NDMC area was to be assessed on the
     basis of unit area system instead of previous basis of property tax on
     actual rent. As a result, the annual property tax payable for the area
     occupied by the respondent worked out at Rs.9,64,710/- p.a. i.e
     Rs.80,392.50/-per month when divided over twelve months period. The
     respondent failed to pay the house tax despite repeated request of the
 B · appellant; therefore the appellant was left with no alternative but to deposit
     entire arrears of tax. The appellant issued a notice dated 16.06.2010
     terminating the tenancy on the failure of the respondent to pay the said
     amount ofrent and instituted the suit under the provisions of the Transfer
     of Property Act. It is contended that the rate of rent per month was
 C Rs.1438/- and after adding the tax, it exceeded Rs.3500/- per month.
     Therefore, the tenant lost protection of the Rent Act. It is argued that
     the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman
     reported in ILR (1978) 1 Delhi page 139, has laid down that the amount
     of tax on building orland becomes part of the rent. Section 121(1) of the
 D Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Corporation Act')
     enables the landlord to recover from the tenant in excess of the amount
     ofhousc tax which has been levied on the building and which is in excess
     of the amount which would be leviable on the amount of contracted rent
     received from the tenant. The Full Bench held that the landlord is entitled
     to recover, under Section 121 (1) of the said Act, the enhanced amount
 E . of house tax from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of tenancy
     and the provisions of Section 7(2) and Section 4 of the Rent Act. Sub-
     sections (1) and (3) of Section 121 of the Corporation Act is in pari
     materia with sub-sections ( l) and (3) of Section 67 of the NDMC Act.
     For the reasons set out in the judgment of the Full Bench in Ganga Ram
 F (supra), the High Court ought to have dismissed the appeals.
                 10. It is further argued that Section 7(2) of the Rent Act could not
       be the basis for denying the benefit of Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act.
         The tax component becomes a part of.the rent. If the tax component is
       added to the monthly rent, the total rent of the premises exceeds Rs.3,500/
       -. It is submitted that the property tax has to be fictionally treated as rent
 G     under Section 67(1) of the NDMC Act because in the absence of the
       same; the landlord would be compelled to pay the whole amount of tax
       which is recoverable from him and would be left to an expensive and
       cumbersome remedy of filing a civil suit for recovery of such tax. It is
       submitted that the liability to pay excess property tax is solely that of
 H·
    ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                               1051
       INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.)

tenant and the landlord has been provided with 'rights and remedies' for        A
recovery of such amounts as rents. Therefore, the High Court was not
justified in holding that the property tax will not constitute rent to enable
the appellant to seek ejectment/posscssion of the suit property. In this
connection, he bas relied on the decisions of this Court in Karnani
Properties Ltd. v. Augustine, (1957) SCR 20. Bombay Municipal                   B
Corporation v. Life Insurance Corporation, Bombay ( 1970) l SCC
791, Raju Kukura Shetty v. Ramesh Prataprao Shirole, (1991) 1
SCC 570, D.C. Bhatia v. Union oflndia, (1995) I SCC 104 and Calcutta
Gujarati Education Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn., (2003)
 10 sec 533.
        11. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the c
respondent submits that the contractual rent of the suit property was
Rs. J ,586/- per month. The Rent Act is a special enactment, and has a
non-obstante clause and the NDMC Act docs not contain a 11011-
obstante clause. Section 411 of the NDMC Act provides that. other
laws not to be disregarded. The primacy of the statue would have to be D
determined on the basis of the intention of the legislature. The NDMC
Act is a general enactment and the special enactment prevails over the
general enactment. It is pointed out that Section 67(3) ofNDMC Act
permits the landlord to recover rent. However, for non-payment of the
rent which includes tax component, the landlord cannot sue for eviction/
ejectment of the tenant. Alternatively, it is argued that even ifthe NDMC E
Act prevailing over the Rent Act, still this Court has to harmoniously
construe the provisions so as to ensure that latter t'nactmcnt does not
violate the Rent Act. Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a
right to recover the rent and even ifthe latter enactment was to override
the earlier enactment in so far as obviating the effect of Section 7(2) of F
the Rent Act, still the tax could not be added as a rent for the purpose of
determining as to whether the tenant will lose the protection under the
Rent Act by adding the said rent to the contractual rent so as to consider
it above Rs.3,500/- per month.
       12. The issue which arises for consideration in the present matter       G
is regarding the interplay of Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act vis-a-vis
Section 7(2) of the Rent Act. Under Section 67(3) the landlord has
been given the right to recover the house tax from the tenant as if the
same were rent whereas under Section 7(2) of the Rent Act, there is a
specific bar to recover any tax as rent from the tenant.
                                                                                H
1052           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017] 12 S.C.R.


 A         13. Having regard the contentions urged, let us first consider as
    to whether in Ganga Ram (supra) Delhi High Court has taken a view
    that the tax recoverable under the Corporation Act can be made a part
    of the rent for the purpose of eviction/ejectment of a tenant. In Ganga
    Ram (supra) the tenant had sub-let a portion of the property and was
 B receiving rents from the sub-tenant. After taking into consideration the
    rents received by the tenant from the sub-tenant and the rent payable by
    him to the landlord, the corporation determined the rateable value on the
    basis that the premises was fetching higher rent than that of the rent
  · paid by the tenant to the landlord. It was the case of the landlord that
    he was entitled, under Section 121(1) of the Corporation Act, to recover
 C from the tenant the difference between the amount of property tax levied
    on the property and the amount of tax which would be leviable upon the
    premises if the tax was calculated only on the amount ofrent paid by the
    tenant to the landlord without taking into consideration the rent received
    by the tenant from the sub-tenant. Taking into consideration this plea,
 D the Court framed second question for determination as under:
            "(2) If so, whether the landlord is entitled to recover under section
            121 of the Corporation Act the enhanced amount of house tax
            from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of tenancy and the
            provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 and 4 of the Delhi Rent
            Control Act?"
 E
            14. It was held that the bar created by the provisions in the Rent
    Control Act pertains to "normal tax on a building" occupied by tenant.
    Bar containing in Section 7(2) in the Rent Act pertains to normal tax on
  · a building occupied by a tenant while Section 121(1) of the Corporation
    Act deals with the particular contingency where the property tax levied
 F for the tenanted premises if more than the amount which would have
    been levied, had the assessment been made on the basis of the rent
    payable by the tenant to the landlord. The Court held that landlord is
    entitled to recover, under Section 121 of the Corporation Act, the enhanced
    amount of house tax from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of
 G tenancy and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 and Section 4
    of the Rent Act. The Cou1t has not considered the question relating to
    eviction of a tenant under the provisions of Rent Act where protection is
    accorded to the tenant from eviction.
             15. The question for consideration in this appeal is entirely
 H     different. The question is whether non-payment of property tax
    ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                          1053
       INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

recoverable from the tenant as rent can be a ground for his eviction/ A
ejectment from the premises. The Rent Act is beneficial and also
restrictive in nature. It is primarily an Act to provide for the control of
rents and evictions. It is settled that while interpreting the provisions of
this Act, the Courts are under a legal compulsion to harmoniously read
the provisions of the Act so as to balance the rights of the landlord and
                                                                             8
the obligations of the tenant towards each other, keeping in mind that
one of the objects of the legislature while enacting the Rent Act was to
curb the tendency of the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants paying
lower rent and to rent out the premises at the market rate. Section 14
occurring in Chapter 3 of the Rent Act provides for controlling of eviction
of tenants. It puts an embargo as regards recovery of possession of any c
premises at the instance of the landlord unless the Controller satisfies
himself as regards existence of any of the grounds specifically referred
to in the proviso appended thereto.
       16. Section 2(i) of the Rent Act defines the "premises". Section
3(c) states, "nothing in the Act shall apply to any premises whether D
residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3,500/-". Sub-section
(2) of Section 7 puts an embargo on the landlord not to recover from the
tenant any amount of tax on the building or land imposed in respect of
the premises occupied by the tenant. This provision is as under:
      "(2) Where a landlord pays in respect of the premises any charge      E
      for electricity or water consumed in the premises or any other
      charge levied by a local authority having jurisdiction in the area
      which is ordinarily payable by the tenant, he may recover from
      the tenant the amount so paid by him; but the landlord shall not
      recover from the tenant whether by means of an increase in rent
      or otherwise the amount of any tax on building or land imposed in     F
      respect of the premises occupied by the tenant.''
        17. Section 50 of the Rent Act bars the civil court to entertain any
suit or proceedings insofar as it relates to the fixation of standard rents
in relation to any premises to which the Rent Act applies or to eviction of
any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the controller is G
empowered by or under the said Act.
     18. It is also relevant to notice two provisions of the NDMC Act
namely; sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 67 which are as under:

                                                                            H
1054            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.


 A           "67. Apportionment of liability for property tax when the
             premises are let or sub-let.-(!) If any land or building assessed
             to prope11y tax is let, and its rateable value exceeds the amount of
             rent payable in respect thereof to the person upon whom under
             the provision of section 66 the said tax is leviable, that person
             shall be entitled to receive from his tenant the difference between
 B
             the amount of the property tax levied upon him and the amount
             which would be leviable upon him ifthe said tax was calculated
             on the amount of rent payable to him.
             (2) ................ .

 C.          (3)Any person entitled to receive any sum under this section shall
             have, for the recovery thereof, the same rights and remedies as if
             such sum were rent payable to him by the person from whom he
             is entitled to receive the same."
              19. Yet another provision which requires considemtion is Section
 D     4.11 of the NDMC Act, which reads as under:
             "411. Other laws not to be disregarded.- Save as provided in
             this Act nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as
             authorising the disregard by the Council or the Chairperson or
             any municipal officer or other municipal employee of any laws
 E           for the time being in force."
           20. While the normal principle is that the latter enactment will
   prevail in cases where the latter enactment has a non-obstante clause,
   that is, giving it overriding effect and secondly, if it is also held to be a
   special enactment with regard to the matter in issue. In the instant
   case, the earlier enactment has a non-obstante clause in Section 14
 F
   which grants protection to the tenant from being evicted from any
   premises "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
   law or contract, no order of decree for the recovery of possession of
   any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the
   landlord against a tenant." Thus the earlier enactment which is a special
 G enactment has a non-obstante clause and the latter enactment which is
   not a special enactment as far as landlord tenant issue is concerned and
   the same does not have a non-obstante clause and in fact, has a section
   namely Section 411 which provides that other laws not to be disregarded.


 H
    ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                                1055
       INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

       21. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur                A
and Ors., ( 1981) 1 SCC 315, this Court was considering a conflict between
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Life Insurance Act, 1956. It
was held that so far as matters concerning industrial dispute are concerned,
the Industrial Disputes Act would prevail over the latter enactment i.e.
Life Insurance Corporation oflndiaAct.
                                                                                 B
      22. In Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Viswa Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 288, it was held that Rent Act
of 1947 will prevail over the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960, so far as the protection of the tenant from eviction is concerned.
Here also, both the Acts held a 11011-obstante clause but still the earlier
enactment was held to cover the field and hence, was to be given primacy         C
over the latter enactment.
        23. As seen from the abovementioned judgments, this Court has
held that an earlier enactment will prevail over a latter enactment even
if, there is a no11-obsta11te clause in the latter enactment, if it were to be
held that the earlier enactment is a special enactment on the particular         D
subject being in issue.
      24. Assuming that the latter enactment prevailing over the earlier
enactment were to apply to this case, the two enactments have to be
harmoniously construed so as to ensure that the latter enactment does
not cause violence to the intent of the earlier enactment.                       E
In St Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) l SCC 558, it
has been held thus:-
       "140 .... The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be
       read in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and the
                                                                                 F
       principle of harmonious construction merely applies the rule that
       where there is a general provision oflaw dealing with a subject,
       and a special provision dealing with the same subject, the special
       prevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way the
       result would be that the special provision would be wholly
       defeated".                                                                G
Similarly, in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
( 1999) 7 SCC 76 this Court has held as under:


                                                                                 H
1056             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] 12 S.C.R.



 A           "10. While determining the question whether a statute is a general
             or a special one. focus must be on the principal subject-matter
             coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the
             intendment of the Act. Keeping in mind this basic principle, we
             will have to examine the provisions of the two Acts to find out
             whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the provisions of
 B
             Section 4 of the Finance Act and Section 49 of the Sugarcane
             Act .......... "
              25. In Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements
       Limited and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 319, it was held that when a general
       law and a special law dealing with the same aspect dealt with by the
 c     general law arc in question, the general law to the extent dealt with by
       the special law is impliedly repealed.
              26. The object of the Rent Act is to provide protection to tenants
       who under common law, including Transfer of Prope1ty Act could be
       evicted from the premises let out to them at any time by the landlord on
 D     the termination of their tenancy. It restricts the right of the landlord to
       evict the tenant at their will. It is a special law in relation to landlord and
       tenant issue. Therefore, the Rent Act has to prevail insofar as landlord
       and tenant issue is concerned.
              27. Let us now consider the judgments relied upon by Shri
 E     Dushyant Dave. In Karnani Property Ltd. (supra) by agreement of
       the parties, the rent fixed included payment of the additional amenities
       and services. In Bombay Municipal Corporation (supra) the question
       relating to eviction of a tenant has not been considered. In Raju Kakara
       Shetty (supra) the statutory right to recover the education cess in respect
 F     of demised premises from the occupant-tenant was quantified by
       agreement of the parties. In D.C. Bhatia (supra) this Court has
       considered the validity of Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
        1958. In Calcutta Gujarati Education Society (supra) this Court has
       not considered the eviction of a tenant nor the interplay between a
       provision similar to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Rent Act and
 G     Section 231 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which is
       pari materia with Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act. Hence, these
       judgments have no application to the facts of the instant case.
              28. Therefore, we are of the view that though the Rent Act is an
       earlier Act when compared to the NDMC Act, it is a special enactment
 H
    ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL                            1057
       INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.)

with regard to the matter in issue and has a non-obstante clause. The        A
NDMC Act is not a special enactment insofar as landlord-tenant issue is
concerned and it contains Section 411 which provides that other laws
not to be disregarded. Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a
right to recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent. It does not
override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of Section 7(2) of     B
the Rent Act. In our opinion, the tax recoverable from the tenant under
Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant
cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of
seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondent who defaults in payment
of such recoverable tax as rent.
      29. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed         c
with no orders as to costs.


Atikit Gyun                                              Appeal dismissed.