Holding

The later 1977 notification does not withdraw the earlier obligation to vacate; therefore the landlord is entitled to rely on section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act to evict the tenants.

Summary

The respondent, a government employee and landlord, sought eviction of the appellants under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming he needed the premises for personal occupation because earlier government notifications (9‑Sept‑1975 and a special order of 22‑Jan‑1976) required him to vacate his allotted government accommodation and imposed a penal rent. The appellants contended that a later circular dated 14‑July‑1977 removed the obligation to vacate, thus negating the landlord’s right to invoke section 14A. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1977 notification withdrew the earlier requirement or merely modified the rent payable. It held that the later notification did not cancel the original duty to vacate; it only gave the landlord an option to remain in the government accommodation subject to specified rent obligations. Consequently, the landlord satisfied the conditions of section 14A and was entitled to evict the tenants. The appeal by the tenants was dismissed.

Issues considered

The effect of the 14‑July‑1977 government notification on the earlier 9‑Sept‑1975 notification and the special order requiring the landlord to vacate government accommodation.
Whether a landlord who continues to occupy government accommodation under the 1977 notification can invoke section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act to evict tenants.
Interpretation of section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the context of successive government orders.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14A(1), s. 25B
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

Subjects

Delhi Rent Control Actsection 14Aevictiongovernment accommodationnotificationspenal rentlandlord‑tenantpersonal occupation

Judgment

53
A
JAIN MALLEABLES

v.
BHARAT SAHAY
B
December 8, 1981

[V.D. TULZAPURKAR, BAHARUL {SLAM
AND A. V ARADARAJAN, JJ.]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, section 14A (I) read with .1ection 25B and C
Governme~t of India Notifications dated 9-9-1975 and 14-7-1,977, scope of.

- The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the appellant,
under 'section i4A read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on
the ground of requirement for personal occupation, in view of the fact that he
~as forced to pay penal rent of Rs. 1,448 from his Government accommoda-
tion as per Government of India notification dated 9-9-1975 and the special D
order dated 22-1-1916 requiring him to. vacate the Government accommodation
by 31-12-1975. After presentation of the eviction petition and service of notice
under section 25B of the Act, the appellant filed a petition for grant of leave to
defend the main petition and raised several objections in the written state-
ment. One such objection was that in view of the later circular of the Govern-
ment dated 14-7-19"7, the respo!ldent was not required to vacate the Govern-
ment accommodation and, therefore, he w11s not entitled to evict the appellants
under the provisions of section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said E
objection having been disallowed by the Additional 'Rent Controiler the appel-
l!!nt filed Civil Revision Petition before the Delhi High Court, which met with
the same fate. · Hence the appeal against that order by special leave.

- Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : I. The respondent landlord is entitled to have recourse to sec-
tion 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for evicting the appellants from
F

the premises in question. [68 A-B]

2. The second notification dated 14-7-1977 of the Government, without
taking away the obligation imposed by the first notification dated 9-9-75 on
Govern men! employees owning houses in their own names or in the name of G
any ·other member of their families, within the limits of their place of posting,
vacate the Government accomodation within three months from !st of October,
1975, has given an option to those employees to continue to occupy the
Government accommodation subject to the obligation mentioned in the second
notification, namely, that. the house owning Government employee will have
to pay normal rent for the Government accommodation if the income from his H
1>wn ho11se does not e11ceed Rs 1,000 per mensem half the market rent if the
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!982] 2 s.c.il.
A income from his own house exceeds Rs. 1,000 per mensem but does not exceed
Rs. 2,000/- per mensem and full market rent if the income from his house is
above Rs. 2,000 per mensem with effect from 1-6-1977. [64 C-E]

3. In the present case, (iJ even apart from the first notification dated
9-9-1975 which is general in nature and has been modified by the second notifica-
tion dated 14-7-1977 there is the stiecial. order dated 22-1-1976 which required the
8 respondent to vacate the Government accommodation by 31-12-1975, failing
which he is to pay market rent with effect from 1-1-1976: (ii) the market rent/
licence fee which the respondent had to pay for the Government accommoda-
tion on the date of institution of the Eviction Petilion was Rs. 1,448 per
mensem and it had been increased to Rs. 1,543 per mensem and further
enhanced to Rs. 2,898 per mensem by the letter dated 17/18-7-1981 of the
Assistant Director of Estates addressed to the respondent: (iii) there is nothing
c on record to show that the obligation imposed upon respondent by the first
notification to vacate the Government accommodation within three months
from !st of October, 1975 and by the special order dated 22-1-1976 by 31st
December, 1975 has been withdrawn; (iv) the respondent has an option to con-
tinue to occupy the Government accommodation subject to certain obligations
contained in the two notifications without vacating the Government accommoda·
tion within a period of three months from 1st of October, 1975 and (v) it is not
0 open t.o the apoellants to compel the respondent to exercise his option and con-
tinue to occupy the Government accommodation in order that he may continue to
occupy the premises in question as the tenant. [64 E-H, 65 A-BJ

Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P.T. Menghani and Anr., [1977] 3 S.C.R.
312 referred to.

E K.D. Singh v. Shri Hari Babu Kanwal, [1980] 1 RCR 90, overruled.

J.L. Paul v. Ranjit Singh, [1980] 2 SCR 527, approved.

CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSDJCTJoN : Civil Appeal No. 1472
of 1980.
F
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and order dated
the !st February, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision
Petition No. I 22 of 1980.

Madan Bhatia, Rojiv Behl and Sushi! Kumar for the Appellant.
G
L.M. Singhvi, L.R. Gupta M. V. Goswami and L. K. Pandey
for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
VARADARAJAN J. This appeal by special leave is directed against
the one word order dated 1.2.1980 ofthe learned Single Judge of the
1A1N MALlEABLES v. BHARAT SAHAY (Varadarajan, J.) 55

Delhi High Court dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. I 22 of A
1980 in limine. The tenants who were respondents in the Rent
Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil Revision Petition against the
Rent Controller's order dated 30. 10.1979, declining to permit them
to raise certain grounds of defence while granting leave to defend
the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave to
appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High B
Court has been granted by this Court only on the question whether
s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to
the facts and circumstances of the case "in view of the later Circular
of 1977". The "later Circular of 1977" mentioned in the special
leave granted by this Court on 5.8.1980 is the Office Memorandum
dated 14.7.1977 of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, c
Ministry of Works and Housing, Directorate of Estates, hereinafter
referred to as the "second notification". The same Joint Secretary
to the Government of India in the same Ministry had issued the
earlier Memorandum dated 9.9.1975, hereinafter referred to as the
"first notification".
D
The respondent-landlord filed the Petition for eviction of the
apellants under s. 14A read with s. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". In the Eviction Peti-
tion the respondent had alleged that by virtue of his being a Govern-
ment servant he has been allotted residential accommodation at
No. 83 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi since November 1971. Under the E
first notification he is required to vacate the Government accommo-
dation and shift to his own house No. 11-B Maharani Bagh, New
Delhi, which is now in the occupation of the appellants, and if he
failed to do so he is to incur the obligation of paying rent/licence

- fee of Rs 1,448 per mensem on the ground that he owns a residen-
tial building in the Union Territory of Delhi and still continues to
occupy Government accommodation: The appellants have not
F

vacated the premises occupied by them in spite of several assurances
given by them since February 1976. The respondent is paying a
penal rent of Rs. 1,448 per mensem for the Government accommoda-
tion because he had not vacated that accomodation provided to him
by the Government as a Government servant.
G

After presentation of the Eviction Petition and service of notice
under s. 25B of the Act, the appellants filed a Petition for grant of
leave to defend the main Petition. One of the objections disallowed,
H
with which we are concerned in this appeal, is that in view of the
second notification the respondent is not required to vacate the
SUPREME toURt REPORTS [1982) 2 s.c.i.
A Government accommodation now av·ailable to him and that he is,
therefore, not entitled to evict the appellants under the provisions
of s. 14A of the Act. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the
appellants against the order of the Additional Rent Controller has
been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as
mentioned above. The appellants have, therefore, filed this appeal
B by special leave against that order.

We are concerned in this appeal with s. 14A (I) of the Act,
which reads thus :

c "14A (1) Where landlord who, being a person in

-
occupation of any residential premises allotted to him .by
the Central Government or any local authority is required,
by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made
by that Government or authority, to vacate such residential
accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations,
0 on the ground that he owns, in the Union territory of
Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his own name
or in the name of his wife or dependent child, there shall
accrue, on and from the date of such order to such land-
lord notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in
this Act or in any other law for the time being in force in
any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage
to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession
of _any premises let out by him :

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed

F
as conferring a right on a landkird owning, in the Unio,o
territory of Delhi, two or more dwelling houses, whether in
his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent
child, to recover the possession of more than one dwelling
-
house and it shall be lawful for suci1 landlord to indicate
the dwelling house, possession of which he intends to
recover.
G

There is no dispute that the respondent ·is the owner of the
premises in question, namely, 11-B Maharani Bagh, New Delhi,
now occupied by the appellants on a rent of Rs. 2, I 00 per mensem
iI and that he is at present in occupation of Government accommoda-
tion at No. 83 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi and is obliged to pay
JAIN MALLEABLES v. ilil:ARAT SAiIAY (Varadara}an, J.) )1

penal rent/licence fee of Rs. 1,448 per mensem. The relevant por· 'A
tion of the first notification reads thus :

"That undersigned is directed to say that the question
of allotment of Government residential accommodation to
officers owing houses at or near the stations of their posting
has been under consideration of Government for some B
time past. It has now been decided, in supersession of all
previous orders on the subject, as follows :-

(i) Those Government servants, who build houses in
future at the place of their posting, within the limits of C
any local or adjoining municipality, whether with or
without Government assistance, or who become
owners of houses .in future-either in their own names
or in the names of any members of their families-
shall be required to vacate Government accommoda·
tion in their occupation from the date their own houses 0
are fit for occupation.

(ii) Those Government servants, who have already built
houses at the place of their posting within the limits
of any local or adjoining municipality' whether with
or without Government assistance, or who own houses E
either in their own names or in the names of any
members of their families-shall be required to vacate
the Government accommodation allotted to them,
within three months from the 1st of October 1975.
If they do not vacate Government accommodation after
that period, they would be charged licence fee at market F
rates.

(iii) Hence onward, no Government accommodation should
be allotted to an officer O\irning a house at the place
of his posting within the limits of any local or adjoining
G
municipality. A certificate shall be obtained from a
prospective allottee that he has no house at the station
of his posing within the limits of any local or adjoining
municipality-either in his own name or in name of
any member of his family.
H
(iv)
SUPREME cobR'i' REPOR.ts [19821 i s.c.Ii..

A (v)

2.

3. The Ministry of Home Affairs, etc. are requested
to bring the above decision of Government to the
B notice of all their attached and subordinate offices,
and ensure that the decision is implemented in respect
of different pools of Government residence under their
control.

4. Jn so far as general pool accommodation is con-
c cerned, the Ministry of Home Affairs, etc., are
requested to bring this to the notice of all Govern-
ment Servants who are eligible for general pool
accommodation as well as those who have already
been allotted accommodation from the general pool,
asking them by 15th October, 1975 to indicate whether
})
they have their own houses as covered by these orders.
In case they have, a declaration may be obtained from
them in the prescribed proforma and forwarded to the
Directorate of Estate (Coordination I Section) by 15th
November, 1975. Other officers who do not own
houses should also furnish a declaration to that effect.
E All officials who have been allotted general pool
accommodation may be advised that it is their
responsibility to inform the Directorate of Estates,
when they or any member of their families become
owners of houses in future, within one month from the
date of becoming such owners. All officers eligible
F for general pool accommodation may also be warned
that severe action will be taken against them in
case they furnish any incorrect information".

In addition to this general first notification relating to Govern-
ment accommodation in the occupation of Government employees
G there is a special order dated 22.1.1976 of the Assistant Director of
Estates, New Delhi calling upon the respondent to vacate the
Government accommodation No. 83 Lodhi Estate allotted to him
since 31.12.1975, failing which he would be charged market rent
with effect from 1.1.1976 at the rate fixed by Government from time
H to time and informing him that a .bill at the market rate of licence
fee for the said premises will follow.
JAIN MALLEABLES v. BHARAT SAHAY (Varadarajan, J.) 59

In the affidavit filed in support of the Petition for grant of A
leave to defend the main Eviction Petition the appellants have stated
that the respondent is occupying a huge, massive and palatial
bungalow in the Lodhi Estate, New Delhi built on an area of about
two acres and allotted to him by the Government and that whereas
he is paying an alleged rent of Rs. 1,448 per mensem for that
accommodation, he is getting a rent of Rs. 2, 100 per mensem for B
his premises occupied by the appellants and he is thereby gaining a
sum of Rs. 652 per mensem. The appellants have further stated
in that affidavit that there is a clear shift in the policy of the
Government whereby Government accommodation is made available
to even those employees who happen to have their own houses at
Delhi and that Government have modified the notification relied c
upon by the respondent whereby house owing officials have become

- eligible for allotment of Government accommodation at the places
of their posting with effect from 1.6.1977.

The notification said to modify the first notificatition is the D
second notification. The relevant portion of that notification reads
thus:

"The undersigned is directed to say that the orders
contained in this Ministry's office Memorandum No. 12031
(1)/74-Pol. II, dated 9.9.1975, as modified from time to
E
time have been reconsidered. Government has decided
that the restrictions on allotment of accommodation to
houses owning officers should be modified with effect from
l.6.1977, making house owning officers eligible for Govern-

- ment accommodation as communicated in this Ministry's
Office Memorandum of even number dated the 29th June,
1977. It has also been decided that allotment of such
F

accommodation to a house owning official will be on
normal rent if the income from his own house does not
exceed Rs. 1,000 p.m. or half the market rent if the income
exceeds Rs. 1,000 p.m. but does not exceed Rs. 2,000 p.m.
and on full market rent if the income is above Rs. 2,000
p.m. Rent will be recovered on the same basis w.e.f,
1.6.1977 also from those house owing officials who are
retaining Government accommodation on payment of
market rents. These decisions will apply equally whether H
the house is owned by the officer or bis/her wife/husbanc\
or by his/her dependent children,
60 SUPREMt COURT REPOR'JS (1982) 2 s.c.R.

A 2.
3. Allotment of accommodation to house owning officers
who have already vacated Government accommoda-
tion.

B Such officers will be considered for allotment of
accommodation in their turn on the basis of their priority
date under the allotment rules. No preference should be
shown to them in the matter of allotment in consideration
of the fact that they were earlier in occupation of Govern-
ment accommodation and bad vacated it in compliance
c with the earlier orders to which the officers are normally
entitled without restriction of any locality or without any

D
reference to the types of accommodation which the officers
were occupying previously. As usual, officers eligible for
types V and above should also be considered for allotment
in the types next below on the basis of their priority for
-
such types. After accepting initial allotment, they will be
eligible for change in the normal manner in accordance
with the allotment rules.

4.
E 5.

6. In so for as the general pool is concerned officers who
have already vacated Government accommodation may
submit fresh applications for allotment of accommoda-
tion in the prescribed application form, indicating the

' details of the houses owned by them or their spouses
or dependent children, alongwitb documentary proof
of the income they derive from the houses they own.
-
House owing officers, who are continuing in Govern-
ment accommodation, should also furnish suitable
documentary proof of the income they get from their
G private houses, to enable the Director of Estates to
· fix the licence fee recoverable from them w.e.f.
1.6.1977".

Mr. Madan Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants, sub·
H mitted that while under the first notification the respondent was
required to vacine the Governm~nt accommo<lati<m within three
iAIN MALLEABLES v. BHARAT SAHAY (Varadarajan, J.) 61

months from 1.10.1975 on pain of being liable to pay licence fee at A
the market rate if he failed to vacate within that time, Government
employees like respondent have become eligible for Government
accommodation under the second notification and are, therefore,
not obliged to vacate the Government accommodation and that
the respondent is, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction of the
appellants from his premises under s. l 4A of the Act though he B
may file a Petition for eviction under s. 14 (I) (e) of the Act which
is a general provision applicable to all landlords who seek to evict
their tenants on the ground that they require the premises for their
own bonafide occupation. Section 14 (1) (e) reads thus:

G
"14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary con-
tained 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 favour of the landlord
against a tenant :
D
Provided that the Controller may, on an application
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for
the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more
of the following grounds only, namely :-

(a) E
(b)

(c)

-
(d)
F
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are requi-
red bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a resi-
dence for himself or for any member of his family
dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for
any person for whose benefit the premises are held and G
that the landlord or such person has no other
reasonably suitable residential accommodation :

Explanation-For the purposes of this clause, "premises
H
let for residential purposes" include any premises which
having been let for use as a resic!ence are, witho11t the con-
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19821 2 s.c I\

A sent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or
other purposes ;

"
Jn support of the contention that in view of the second noti~
B fication the respondent is not entitled to have recourse to the pro-
. visi.ons of s. 14A of the Act, Mr. Madan Bhatia relied upon the
decision of this Court in Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P.T.
Menghani and Anr.( 1) where the Court has observed at page 323
thus :

c
"Supposing the landlord, after exploiting the easy
process of s. 14A, relets the premises for a higher rent; the
social goal boomerangs because the ten ant is ejected and
the lanlord does not occupy, as he would have been bound
to do, if he had sought eviction for bona fide occupation
-
D under s. 14 (I) (e). Section 19 obligates the landlord in
this behalf. In literal terms, that section does not apply to
eviction obtained under s. 14A. But the scheme of that
· section definitely contemplates a specific representation by
the petitioner-landlord to the Con troll er that because he
has been ordered to vacate the premises where he is residing
E therefore, he requires immediate possession for his occupa-
tion ............ Ollce we grasp this cardinal point, the officer's
application for eviction under s. 14A can be entertained
only on his averment that he, having been asked to vacate,
must get into possession of his own ............ The cause of
action is not only the government order to vacate, but his
F .consequential urgency to recover his own building."

Mr. Madan Bhatia relied also on the decision of learned
-
single Judge of the Delhi High Court in K. D. Singh v. Shri Hari
Babu Kanwal,(1) where the learned Judge has observed thus :

"At the time when this application was brought in
G
February 1977, the Circular of 9,9.1975 held the field.
Unfortunately, for the. landlord this position under-went
change when the Central Government issued a revised
Circular dated 14.7.1977 by which the orders contained in
H
(l) [1977] 3 SCR 312.
(2) [1980] l RCR. 90,
JAlN MALLEABtES v. BHARA'l' SAHAY (Varadarajan, J.) 63

the earlier circular dated 9.9.1975 were modified after
reconsideration..................... A vital change thuse took
place by the Circular of 14.7.1977, namely, that there is
no direction to a person who owns a house and who is in
occupation of a residential premises allotted to him by the
Central Government to vacate such residential accommo-
8
dation... . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . Once therefore, the revised Circular
of 14. 7.1977 has come, the very basis on which the Eviction
Application under s.14 A of Act was brought has ceased
to exist and cannot avail him .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. It must be
realised that s.14A was brought in only for a limited pur-
pose to enable the Government servants in getting imme-
diate possession of their house when they had been directed
c
- to vacate the Government accomodation. The special
legislation was made to serve special purpose in pursuance
of the Circular of 9.9.1975. Once that purpose has been
modified and the Government bas revised its decision and
there is no direction- to vacate such residential accommoda- D
tion, it is impermissible in law to allow a Government
servant to invoke s. l 4A and frustrate the beneficial Act of
the Rent Control legislation like the Delhi Rent Control
Act".

We do not agree with this view of the learned Judge.
E

I~ is seen from paragraph 3 of the Order of the Additional
Rent Controller, which was sought to be revised by the High

- Court, that the respondent is paying a rent of Rs. 1,448 per mensem
for the Government accommodation No. 83 Lodhi Estate, New
Delhi. In the reply affidavit filed in the Special Leave Petition
the respondent has stated that he is liable to pay Rs. 1,543 per
F

mensem for the Government accommodation as penal rent on acc-
ount of bis failure to vacate the same. The respondent has produced
in this Court a communicatio? addressed to him by the Assistant
Director of Estates, New Delhi saying that without prejudice to any
G
other action which may be taken in respect of the Government
accommodation which has been allotted to him, his liability will
continue to increase to Rs. 2,898 per mensem and three times that
+ rate on the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of orders of
eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occu- H
pants) Act 1971 till he vacates and restores the premises to the
Central Public Works Department. These facts and the liability ofthe
64 SUPREME COUR't REPORTS [1982) 2 s.c.lt

A respondent to pay full market rent for the Government accommoda-
tion with effect from 1.6.1977 and the second notification in the
light of his getting rental income exceeding Rs. 2,000 per mensem
from his own premises show that the respondent has to incur certain
obligations on his failure to vacate Government accommodation on
the ground that he owns in the Union territory of Delhi a resi-
B dential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his
wife or dependent child. We do not find anything in the second
notification taking away the obligation which has been imposed on
the respondent by the first notification to vacate the Government
accommodation within three months from the !st of October 1975.
We are of the opinion that the second notification, without (taking
c away the obligation imposed by the first notification on Government
employees owning houses in their own names or in the name of any
other member of their families, within the limits of their place of
posting, to vacate the Government accommodation within three
months from the first of October 1975, has given an option to those
-
employees to continue to occupy the Government accommodation
D subject to the obligation mentioned in the second notification,
namely, that the house owning Government employee will have to
pay normal rent for the Government accommodation if the income
from his own house does not exceed Rs. 1,000 per mensem of half
the market rent if the income from his own house exceeds Rs. 1,000
per mensem but does not exceed Rs. 2,000 per mensem and full
E market rent if the income from his house is above Rs. 2,000 per
mensem with effect from 1.6.1977. In the present case the market
rent/licence fee which the respondent had to pay for the Government
accommodation occupied by him on the date of institution of Evic-

F
tion Petition was Rs. 1,448 per mensem and it had been increased to
Rs. 1,543 per mensem as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent in the Special Leave Petition and it has been further
enhanced to Rs. 2,898 per mensem by the letter dated 17/18-7-1981
-
of the Assistant Director of Estates addressed to the respondent and
referred to above. The respondent has thus an option to continue
to occupy the Government accommodation subject to the said
obligation without vacating the Government accommodation within
G a period of three months from the 1st of October, 1975. We are of
the opinion that it is not open to the appellants to compel the
respondent to exercise his option and continue to occupy the Govern-
ment accommodation in order that they may continue to occupy the
premises in question as the tenants. Even apart from the first noti-
H fication which is general in nature and has been modified by the
JAIN MALLEABLES v. BHARAT SAHAY (Varadarajan, J.) 65

second notification as mentioned above, there is the special order A
dated 22, 1.1976 which required the respondent to vacate the Govern-
ment accommodation by 31.12.1975, failing which he is to pay
market rent with effect from 1.1.1976 as mentioned above. In these
circumstances it is not possible for us to accept the argument of
Mr. Madan Bhatia that the respondent is not entitled to have
recourse to s. 14A of the Act for seeking eviction of the appellants
from the premises in question, having regard to first and second
notifications and the special order dated 22.1.1976. Dr. L.M. Singhvi,
learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the
decision of another learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
in JL Paul v. Ranjit Singh (supra) where we find the following
observations: c
- "The last objection of the petitioner is that the nQti-
fications granting a right to the Government employee to
'seek eviction under Section 14A of the Act have been with-
drawn, that this defence raises a triable issue and, therefore, D
. the Controller ought to have granted leave to contest so that
he may produce evidence on record in support of this part
of his defence. The right to claim eviction accrues to a
landlord under s. 14A of the Act and not under any noti-
fication issued by the Government. The Government noti-
. fication, general or special, only requires a landlord E
· Government allottee to vacate the accommodation as he
owns his house or pay penal rent. The respondent submits
. that the general notification dated September 9, I 975 and
the special order dated December 26, 1975 have never been

- withdrawn. His contention is that there has been a noti·
fication about the rate of rent/licence fee to be paid by a
. Government employee, if he is also owner of his own house
at the place of his posting and does not vacate allotted
F

premises. In short his contention is that right of eviction
is available to a landlord allottee of Government accom-
modation if he fulfils the conditions mentioned in s. I 4A of
the Act. According to him there is modification that if the
· income of the landlord from his own house does not exceed
Rs. 1,000 per month, he is liable to pay. only the normal
. rent of the Government allotted accommodation, but if his
income from his own house exceeds Rs. 1,000 and does not
exceed Rs. 2,000 he is liable to pay half the market rent H
. and in cases where his income from his own house is above

I
66 ~P1'.EME COURT REPORTS {1982] 2 s.c.R..

A Rs 2,000 per month, he is liable to pay full market rent.
The respondent contends that s. I 4A of the Act conferring
upon a landlord/Government allottee (a right) to get his
own vacated has never been repealed. The learned counsel
for the respondent further contends that mere assertion of
the petitioner that the notifications have been withdrawn is
B vague and does not give him any right to leave to contest
and lead any evidence .... If any notification has been with-
drawn or cancelled, such an order must be in writing. The
petitioner/tenant in his application does not disclose any
notification under which the Government notification requi- _.
ring a landlord/Government employee to vacate ·has been
c withdrawn.

-
Thus the notification dated September 9, 1975 stands
D modified to the extent as to what rate of rent would be pay-
able by the respondent Government allottee/landlord
owning his own house if he retains the allotted premises,
that is, if he fails to vacate the Government accommodation
in pursuance of the general order dated September 9, 1975
and the special order dated December 26, 1975. The income
E of the respondent from his own house, that is, suit property
No. 164 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi is Rs. 1,950 per
month. He is getting Rs. 850 per month from the peti-
tioner occupying first floor and Rs. I, 100 per month from
'Escorts' occupying the ground floor. In accordance with

F
the notification dated July 14, 1977, the respondent/land-
lord is thus liable to pay half the market rent from June I,
1977 if he does not vacate the Government allotted accom-
modation. In fact after the issue of notification dated July
-
14, 1977 the respondent has been directed to pay half the
market rent by means of an order dated September 20, 1977
issued by the Directorate of Estates, Government of India
with effect from June l, 1977. In short, it is certain that
there is the general notification dated September 9, 1975
and the special order dated December 26, 1975 requir.ng
the respondent/landlord to vacate the Government allotted
residential accommodation or in default to pay half the
H market rent. fa other words he is to incur certain obliga-
tions, The liability is 011 account of the fact that he owns
JAIN MALLEABLES v. BitARAT SAHAY (Varadara}an, J.)

the house in suit in the Union Territory of Delhi, his place A
of posting.

On December 12, 1979 Directorate of Estates was
required to state whether the notification dated September B
9, 1975 stands withdrawn or it was simply modified. The
Directorate of Estates in his letter dated December 14, 1979
informed that the Memorandum dated September 9, 1975
was not withdrawn but was only modified by the Memo-
randum dated July 14, 1977.
c

- So if the two notifications dated September 9, 1975 and
July 14, 1977 are read together, it appears that there is no
cancellation of the earlier notification and that it is only a D
notification of the rate of rent payable by an allottee
owning his own house. Under this notification dated July
14, 1977 it is further provided that with effect from June 1,
1977 rent of allotted premises shall be recovered from the
house owning officials retaining the premises at the rates
mentioned therein. The respondent is, therefore, liable to E
pay the rent accordingly and thus liable to iricur obligation
in default of vacating the premises.

- The respondent satisfies the requirement of s. 14A of
F

the Act. There is no defence available to the petitioner
against the eviction application under s. 14A of the Act".

G
In the present case also there is nothing on record to show that
the obligation imposed upon respondent by the first notification to
vacate the Government accommodation within three months from
the Ist of October 1975 and by the special order dated 22.1.1976 by H
31.12.1975, has been withdrawn. The respondent can continue to
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198~] i s.c.k.

A occupy the Government accommodation only subject to certain
obligations. We, therefore, hold that the respondent is entitled to
have recourse to s. l 4A of the Act for evicting the appellants from
the premises in question. Accordingly the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.

B S.R. Appeal dismissed.

-

-
' I