Supreme Court of India
PRITHIPAL SINGHversusSATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1321
- Decided
- 18 December 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
Section 25‑B (Section 258) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is a complete code that governs eviction on the ground of bona‑fide requirement, and the Rent Controller cannot resort to CPC provisions or condone delay; therefore the eviction order stands restored.
Summary
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant applied for leave to contest the eviction after an eight‑day delay, which the Additional Rent Controller rejected, leading to an eviction order. The tenant later sought to set aside that order using Order 9 Rule 13, Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the CPC, and the Additional Rent Controller allowed the application, a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court held that Section 25‑B (Section 258) of the Act provides a complete special procedure for such evictions and precludes the Rent Controller from invoking CPC provisions or condoning delay; consequently the eviction order was restored and the High Court’s order set aside. The appeal was allowed, granting the landlord possession and directing the tenant to vacate within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Rent Controller could set aside an eviction order and allow the tenant to file an affidavit after a statutory delay under the special procedure of Section 25‑B (Section 258) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
- Whether the Additional Rent Controller could rely on provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Order 9 Rule 13, Order 37 Rule 4, Section 151) and Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules to condone the tenant’s delay.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 37 Rule 4, s. Order 9 Rule 13, s. Section 151
- Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 140, s. 14(1)(e), s. 148, s. 14A, s. 14C, s. 258, s. 25A, s. 25B, s. 25C
- Limitation Act, 1963s. r.13, s. r.37, s. r.4, s. s.9
Subjects
evictionbona fide requirementDelhi Rent Control ActSection 25‑Bcondonation of delayCode of Civil ProcedureRule 23landlord‑tenant
Judgment
[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 736
A PRITHIPAL SINGH
v.
-
SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil appeal No. 8501 of 2009)
DECEMBER 18, 2009
B
-
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
c s.25-B and 14(1), proviso (e) - Petition for eviction of
tenant u/s 14(1 ), proviso (e) on ground of bona fide
requirement of landlord - Eviction ordered, as application of
tenant for leave to file affidavit after eight days' delay to defend
eviction proceedings was rejected by Addi. Rent Controller -
However, eviction order set aside by Addi. Rent Controller on
D
application of tenant under 0.9, r.13 rlw 0.37, r.4 and s.151
'-"
CPC - High Court affinning the order - HELD: Section 25-B '
is a complete code by which the entire procedure to be
adopted for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide
requirement of landlord as specified in s.14(1)(e), has to be
E dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in s.25- .
B - Rule 23, being a general rule, does not confer any power
on Rent Controller to follow provisions of CPC for eviction of
tenants of special classes of landlords, in view of s. 25-8 -
;
Besides, an application for leave to contest having been
F rejected, may be on the ground of delay, could not be allowed
when no application for condonation of delay could be
entertained as provisions of Limitation Act could not be
attracted - High Court acted illegally and with material
irregularity in affinning order of Addi. Rent Controller allowing
G application of tenant - Order of Addi. Rent Controller directing
. eviction of tenant restored and impugned orders of High Court
and Addi. Rent Controller set aside - Delhi Rent Control
-
Rules, 1959 - r.23 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 9,
H 736
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 737
LRS.
r.13, 0.37, r.4 and s.151 - Limitation Act, 1963. A
In an eviction petition filed u/s 14(1), proviso (e) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the application filed by the
tenant for leave to file affidavit, after a delay of eight days,
to defend the eviction proceedings was rejected by the B
Additional Rent Controller holding that he was not
.,
empowered to condone the delay in filing the application .
,, Consequently, eviction order in terms of s.25-8(4) was
passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 28.2.2001.
However, on an application filed by the tenant under 0.
9, r.13 read with 0.37, r. 4 and s.151 CPC, the Additional
c
Rent Controller set aside the order dated 28.2.2001,
restored the proceedings and granted the tenant leave to
contest the eviction proceedings. The High Court
dismissed the petition of the landlord filed under Article
D
- • 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the instant appeal filed by the landlord, the
questions for consideration before the Court were: (i)
whether the Additional Rent Controller, exercising
powers and jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, E
1958, which is a special Act, was justified in setting aside
~ the order of eviction which amounted to restoration of
and allowing the application for leave to defend the
' eviction petition although such application was rejected
earlier on the ground of delay; and (ii) whether the F
Additional Rent Controller was competent to recall orders
of eviction on an application under 0. 9, r.13 read with
0.37, r. 4 and s.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
and condone the delay in applying for leave to defend
when he was not conferred with such power to condone
G
..... the delay in filing the application for leave to defend the
eviction proceedings under the Rent Act specially when
such an affidavit (application for leave to defend) was
earlier rejected by the Additional Rent Controller, on the
ground of delay?
H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The Legislature, by the 1976 amendment,
inserting in the Delhi Rent Act, 1958, Chapter lllA, which
consists of ss.25A to 25C, introduced a special provision
B for summary trial of certain applications filed under the
Act. Section 25-B is a complete code by which special
procedure for disposal of applications for eviction of ....
tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement filed at the
•
instance of the landlord uls. 14 or 14A or 148 or 14C or
14D of the Act has been laid down. From a close
c examination of s. 25-8, it would be evident and clear that
in an application filed by a landlord for recovery of
possession of any premises on the ground specified in
Clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s.14, shall
be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this
D Section. [Para 9-10 and 21) [745-C-F; 748-8-D; 753-A-8]
Kewal Singh vs. Smt. Lajwanti 1980 (1) SCC 290, relied
• -
on.
1.2. From a careful perusal of sub-section (4) of s.25-
E
8 of the Act, it would be clearly evident that the tenant
shall not be permitted to contest the prayer for eviction
unless he files an affidavit before the Controller stating
the ground on which he seeks to contest the application )
for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller. This
F section also clearly indicates that in default of tenant's
appearance in compliance with the summons or his
obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord
in the eviction proceeding shall be deemed to be
admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled
G to an order for eviction on the ground mentioned in the
eviction petition. [Para 14) [749-E-G] -I ---
Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, AIR 1984 SC
967, relied on
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (0) THROUGH 739
LRS.
2.1. As regards applicability of provisions of the Code A
of Civil Procedure, 1908, by virtue of r.23 of the Delhi Rent
-. Control Rules, 1959, r.23 does not specifically confer any
power on the Rent Controller to follow the provisions of
the Code in special classes of landlords. It is a general
rule, by which the Rent Controller in deciding any B
question relating to procedure not specifically provided
.. by the Act and the rules shall, as far as possible, be
guided by the provisions contained in the Code. Section
25-B having been inserted by the Legislature for eviction
of a tenant of a certain classes of landlords, in which the
entire procedure has been given, it cannot be said that
c
r.23 of the Rules can be applied in the instant case in
view of the specific provisions provided in s.25-B of the
Act. Accordingly, r.23 has no manner of application. [Para
....,- 23 and 24] [753-E-H]
;
D
2.2. Since r. 23 cannot be applied in the instant case
because of applicability of s.25-B, which is a special code
and provides for specific procedure for eviction of a
tenant by a landlord on the ground of bona fide
requirement, the courts below erred in holding that in E
view of r.23 of the Rules, the provisions of the Code can
be applied in the case. The High Court acted illegally and
\,
with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction
in affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller
allowing the application of the tenant for setting aside the F
...._ order of eviction and allowing the tenant to file the
affidavit for the purpose of defending the proceedings for
eviction. [Para 25 and 30] [754-A-C]
--- 2.3. That apart, from a perusal of the impugned order
of the High Court and also of the Addi. Rent Controller, it
would be evident that the High Court relied on the
G
decision of the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Quresh* and
held in favour of the tenant/respondent. In the said case,
another decision of the Delhi High Court in Gurditta Mal
H
'•
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A was relied on to come to a conclusion that in view of r.23
of the Rules, the Rent Controller was conferred with the
power to entertain an application under 0.37 r. 4 read with
Section 151 of the Code. The High Court, failed to notice
that the decision in Gurditta Mal was considered in the
8 subsequent decision of this Court in Prakash H Jain. The
provisions under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and
the provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act are pari
materia and, therefore, the decision in the case of Prakash
H. Jain_practically overrules the decision of the Delhi
C High Court reported in Mohd. Quresh and Gurditta Mal.
[Para 26 and 28) [754-C-E; 755-F-H; 756-A]
Prakash H Jain v. Ms. Marie Fernandes AIR 2003 SC
4591, relied on.
D *Mohd. Quresh vs. Smt. Roopa Fotedar & Ors. 1990 (1)
ILR 16; Gurditta Mal vs. Bal Sarup AIR 1980 Delhi 216,
stood overruled.
--
3.1. There is another aspect of the matter. An
application for leave to contest having been rejected, may
E be on the ground of delay, could not be allowed when it
is not disputed by the tenant that no application for
condonation of delay could be entertained by the Rent
J
Controller as the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963
could not be attracted. [Para 30) [756-C-D]
F
3.2. The order of eviction passed by the Additional
Rent Controller on 28th of February, 2001 stands restored,
the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order
of the Additional Rent Controller are set aside and the
G application filed by the landlord uls14(1), proviso (e) of the ~ __ ...
Rent Act stands allowed. [Para 32 and 34) [756-G-H]
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1984 SC 967 relied on para 19
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 741
LRS.
' A
1980 (1) sec 290 relied on para 21
AIR 2003 SC 4591 relied on para 27
1990 (1) ILR 16 stood overruled para 26
AIR 1980 Delhi 216 stood overruled para 26 B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8501 of
~
2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.10.2006 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. (Main) No. 65 of 2002. c
Satinder Singh Gulati, Kamldeep Gulati and Dr. Kailash
Chand for the Appellant.
Rajesh Tyagi and Atishi Dipankar for the Respondents.
" D
" The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
- TARUN CHATIERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal arising out of a Judgment and order
dated 30th of October, 2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi E
at New Delhi in C.M. No. 65 of 2002, whereby the High Court
had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant and
' - upheld the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller,
Delhi. The order of the Additional Rent Controller holding that
he is conferred with power to set aside an ex-parte order for F
eviction in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 9 Rule
13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (in short, "the Code") was thereby affirmed by
the High Court in appeal.
.- G
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal may
be stated as follows in a nutshell :-
The landlord/appellant filed an eviction petition under
Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
•
A "the Rent Act") before the Rent Controller, Delhi for eviction of
the Tenant/Respondent from No. 1-C/46, Ramesh Nagar,
Namdhari Colony, New Delhi \
(in short "the tenanted premises").
After filing of the eviction proceeding, summons was issued in
compliance with Section 25(3) (a) of the Rent Act to the tenant/
B respondent to appear before the Rent Controller on a specified
date for the purpose of defending the eviction proceeding. The
tenant/respondent filed an affidavit by way of an application •
praying for leave to defend the eviction proceeding after delay
of 8 days from the date of service of notice upon him. By an
c order dated 28th of February, 2001, the Affidavit (the
application for leave to defend) was rejected by the Additional
Rent Controller as it was filed 8 days beyond the date
mentioned in the summons. Since there was a delay of 8 days,
Additional Rent Controller held that under the Rent Act, he was
not conferred with any power to condone the delay in filing such ,,.
D •
affidavit. Since the prayer for leave to defend the proceeding
was rejected as a follow up action, an eviction order was
passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in favour of the
,.___
landlord/appellant on 28th of February, 2001 in compliance with
sub-section (4) of Section 25 B of the Rent Act.
E
4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant/respondent filed an
application for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 28th of ..
February, 2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi
under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and Section
F 151 of the Code and also prayed for leave to defend the
eviction proceeding after condoning the delay in filing the same.
By an order dated 7th of December, 2001, the application for
setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction passed on 28th of
February, 2001 was allowed and the eviction proceeding was
G restored to its original file by the Additional Rent Controller,
-.
Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller, by the aforesaid order,
also allowed the prayer of the tenant/respondent by granting
leave to contest the eviction proceeding in compliance with
Section 25(8)(4) of the Rent Act.
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 743
~
LRS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Addi. Rent A
Controller, Delhi, the Landlord/Appellant filed an application
under Article 227 of the Constitution, which came to be
registered as CM No.65/2002, before the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, had
dismissed the petition filed by the landlord/appellant holding that B
there was no patent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction
by the Trial Court in setting aside order of eviction thereby
restoring the affidavit filed by the tenant/respondent for leave
to contest the eviction proceeding. However, the High Court
observed in the impugned Judgment that the Additional Rent
Controller may not have power to condone the delay in seeking
c
leave to defend, but once the eviction decree was passed, the
Addi. Rent Controller can set aside an order of eviction and
restore the prayer for leave to defend the eviction proceeding
by resorting to Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order 37 Rule 4 and
" D
Section 151 of the Code.
6. Against the aforesaid order of the High Court, a Special
Leave Petition was filed, wf1ich on grant of leave, was heard in
presence of the learned counsel for the parties. Before us, the
pivotal issues which were raised by the learned counsel for the E
parties, may be stated as follows :-
(i) Whether the Additional Rent Controller. exercising
"' powers and jurisdiction under the Rent Act, which is a special
Act, was justified in setting aside the order of eviction which
F
amounted to restoration of and allowing the
application for leave to defend the eviction petition
although such application was rejected earlier on
the ground of delay.
(ii) Whether the Additional Rent Controller is G
competent to recall orders of eviction on an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Order
37 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Code and
condone the delay in applying for leave to defend
when he was not conferred with such power to H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A condone the delay in filing the application for leave
to defend the eviction proceedings under the Rent
Act specially when such an affidavit (application for
leave to defend) was earlier rejected by the
Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on the ground of
B delay.
7. We have heard Mr. Gulati, learned counsel
appearing for the Landlord/Appellant and Mr. Tyagi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant/
Respondent. We have carefully examined the
c impugned order of the High Court as well as the
order of the Addi. Rent Controller, Delhi. Before we
take up the aforesaid issues for our decision, it
would be useful for us to refer to some of the
relevant provisions of the Rent Act read with Third
D Schedule of the Rent Act and relevant Rules of the
Delhi Rent Control Rules, 1959 (in short, "the
Rules").
8. Chapter Ill of the Rent Act deals with control of eviction
E of tenants. Section 14 of the Rent Act protects a tenant from
eviction. Section 14 (1)(e) of the Rent Act says that when the
premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide
by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for
any member in his family dependent on him, if he is the owner
F thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are
held and that the landlord or such person has no other
reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the Rent
Controller may, on the application made to him in the
prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession.
By an amendment dated 1st of February, 1975, Section 14 was
G amended so far as the classes of landlords are concerned.
Section 14A confers right on a landlord who, being a person
in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the
Central Government or any local authority, which is required to
be vacated on the notice issued by such authority. Section 148
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 745
, LRS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
was inserted for the purpose of conferring right on the landlords A
who are members of Armed forces to recover immediate
possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide
requirement. This amendment of Section 14 of the Act was
brought by the Legislature on 1st of February, 1988. Section
14C was introduced by another amendment conferring power B
on a landlord who is a Central Government or a Delhi
~ Administration employee to recover immediate possession
from a tenant. Section 140 deals with the right of a widow of a
landlord to recover immediate possession of a tenanted
premises for the bona fide requirement of a widow. All these c
amendments were brought into force by the Legislature on 1st
of January, 1988.
9. Now comes Chapter lllA of the Rent Act which consists
of Sections 25A to 25C and inserted by Act of 1976, i.e., w.e.f. ·
' 1st of February, 1975. By introduction of Chapter lllA, a special D
provision was introduced by the Legislature for summary trial
of certain applications filed under the Rent Act. Section 25A
of the Act clearly says that this provision of Chapter lllA to have
overriding effect notwithstanding any inconsistency thereof
contained elsewhere in this Act or any other law for the time E
being in force. Section 258 is the provision by which special
, procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground
of bona fide requirement filed at the instance of the landlord
under Section 14 or 14A or 148 or 14C or 140 of the Act has
been laid down. Since we are concerned primarily with Section F
258 of the Rent Act, by which the procedure ha<; been adopted
specifically for eviction of a tenant by a landlord on the ground
of bona fide requirement, we need to reproduce the said
Section which runs as under:-
G
"258 - Special procedure for the disposal of applications
for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement -
"(1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of
possession of any premises on the ground specified in
clause (e) of the proviso 10 sub-section (I) of section 14, H
I
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A or under section 14A1[or under section 148 or under
section 14C or under section 140], shall be dealt with in
accordance with the procedure specified in this section.
(2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every
application referred to in sub-section (1 ), in the form
B
specified in the Third Schedule.
(3)(a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and
simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service on
the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by
c registered post, acknowledgment due, addressed to the
tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at
the place where the tenant or his agent actually and
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case
D so require, also direct the publication of the summons in
a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant
is last known to have resided or carried on business or
personally worked for gain.
(b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by
E
the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the
registered article containing the summons is received back
with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a
I
postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent
had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the
F Controller may declare that there has been a valid service
of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served
(whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the
G form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the
prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an
affidavit slating the grounds on which he seeks to contest
the application for eviction and obtains leave from the
Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 747
LRS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
• appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining A
such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the
application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by
the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order
for eviction on the ground aforesaid.
B
(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest
the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses
such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining
an order for the recovery of possession of the premises
on the ground specified in- clause (c) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A.
c
(6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the
application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of
the application as early as practicable.
D
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)
of section 37, the Controller shall, while holding an inquiry
in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow the
practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes,
including the recording of evidence. E
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order
for the recovery of possession of any premises made by
the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified
in this section:
F
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of
satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under
this section is according to law, call for the records of the
case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks
fit. G
(9) Where no application has been made to the High Court
on revision, the Controller may, exercise the powers of
review in accordance with the provisions of Order XLVll
of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (5 of 1908).
•
(10) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the
procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on
the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A, shall be
B
the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications
by Controllers.
10. From a close examination of Section 258 sub-section
(1) of the Rent Act, it would be evident and clear that in an
c application filed by a landlord for recovery of possession of any
premises on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso
to sub-section (1) of Section 14 or under Section 14A or under
Section 148 or under Section 14C or under Section 14D, shall
be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this
D Section. (Emphasis supplied)
11. Sub-section (2) of Section 258 of the Rent Act says ~
that the Controller shall issue summons in relation to every
application referred to in sub-section 1 in the form specified in
the Third Schedule. Sub-section (3) (a) of Section 258 provides
E
that Controller, in addition to and simultaneously with, the issue.
of summons for service on the tenant, also directs the
summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment
due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept
i
the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually
F and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so
require, also direct the publication of the summons in a
newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last
known to have resided or carried on business or personally
G worked for gain.
12. A reading of sub-section (3)(a) of Section 258 would
clearly indicate that in a proceeding under Section 14(1)(e),
how the tenant can be served intimating institution of the eviction
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D);J"HROUGH 749
LRS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ
~
proceeding and date fixed for hearing of the same. Sub-section A
(3)(b) of Section 258 says when the acknowledgement
purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received
by the Controller or the registered article containing the
summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to
have been made by a postal employe~ to the effect that the 8
tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered
article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid
• service of summons .
13. Next comes the very important provision ·in Section 258
of the Rent Act. i.e., sub-section (4) of the same. It clearly
c
provides that a tenant on whom the summons is duly served in
the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the
prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit
stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the
application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller, D
,,.
as hereinafter provided, and in default of his appearance in
pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the
statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction
shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant
shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. E
14. From a careful perusal of sub-section (4) of Section
258 of the Rent Act, it would be clearly evident that the tenant
'< shall not be permitted to contest the prayer for eviction unless
he files an affidavit before the Controller stating the ground on F
which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and
obtains leave from the Controller. This Section also clearly
indicates that in default of his appearance in compliance with
the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made
by the landlord in the eviction proceeding shall be deemed to
G
be· admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to
an order for eviction on the ground mentioned in the eviction
petition.
15. At this stage, we may also note that in sub-section (4)
of Section 258 of the Rent Act re::.:d with Third Schedule, it has H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A been made clear by the Legislature that if the summons of the
proceeding is received by the tenant, he has to appear and ask
for leave to contest the eviction proceeding within 15 days from
the date of service of notice upon the tenant and if he fails to
do so, automatically, an order of eviction in favour of the
B landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement shall be made.
16. Sub-section (5) of Section 258 of the Act clearly says
that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the
eviction proceeding if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses
C such facts as would itself disentitle the landlord from obtaining
an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the
ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1)
or under Section 14A.
17. Sub-section (6) of Section 258 of the Rent Act says
D that where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the
application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the
application as early as practicable. Sub-section (7) of Section
258 says that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(2) of Section 37, the Controller shall, while holding an enquiry
E in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow the
practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including
the recording of evidence. Sub-section (8) of Section 258 bars
an appeal or a second appeal against an order for recovery of
possession of any premises made by the Controller in
F accordance with the procedure specified in this section.
Proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 258 also makes it clear
that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that
an order made by the Controller under this section is, according
to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in
G respect thereto as it thinks fit. Sub-section (9) of Section 258
deals with the power of the Controller to review its order if no
application was made before the High Court in revision.
18. Finally, sub-section (10) of Section 258 clearly says
that the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction
H I
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 751
LRS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to sub- A
section (1) of Section 14 or Section 14A shall be the same as
the procedure for disposal of application by Controllers.
19. The scope of Chapter lllA of the Rent Act has been
elaborately discussed in the case of Ravi Dutt Sharma v.
B
- ..
Ratan Lal Bhargava, (AIR 1984 SC 967), in which this Court
duly discussed the object of the Rent Act and also the insertion
of Chapter lllA of the same in the following manner:-
'The dominant object of the act is to provide a speedy,
c
expeditious and effective remedy for a class of landlords
contemplated by Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A and for
avoiding unusual dilatory process prnvided otherwise by
the Rent Act. It is common experience that suits for eviction
under the Act take a long time commencing with the Rent
Controller and ending up with the Supreme Court. In many D
__.. , cases experience has indicated that by the time the
eviction decree became final several years elapsed and
e.ither the landlord died or the necessity which provided the
- cause of action disappeared and if there was further delay
in securing eviction and the family of the landlord had by
then expanded, in the absence of accommodation the
members of the family were virtually thrown on the road. It
E
was this mischief, which the Legislature intended to avoid
by incorporating the new procedure in Chapter Ill-A. The
Legislature in its wisdom thought that in cases where the F
landlords required their own premises for bona fide and
- personal necessity they should be treated as a separate
class along with the landlords covered by Section 14(A)
and should be allowed to reap the fruits of decrees for
eviction within the quickest possible time. It cannot,
G
- therefore, be said that the classification of such landlords
would be an unreasonable one because such a
classification has got a clear nexus with the objects of the
Amending Act and the purposes, which it seeks to
subserve. Tenants cannot complain of any discrimination
because the Rent Act merely gave certain protection to H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
them in public interest and if the protection or part of it •
A
afforded by the Rent Act was withdrawn and the common
law right of the tenant under the Transfer of property Act
was still preserved, no genuine grievance could be made."
20. Before we take up the question posed before us in
B
detail, we may also refer to one provision of the Rules,
namely, Rule 23 of the said Rules which runs as under :-
"Code of Civil Procedure to be generally followed - In
deciding any question, relating to procedure not
-
c specifically provided by the Act and these rules the
Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal shall, as far as
possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
D 21. A challenge was thrown to Section 258 of the Rent Act
in Kewal Singh vs. Smt. Lajwanti [1980 (1) SCC 290),
questioning the classification held to be not in consonance with
the objective sought to be achieved and the aforesaid provision
must be held to be unconstitutional wherein this Court held that
' -
E
the special provision namely, Section 258 of the Rent Act
providing summary procedure for eviction while the landlord
-
pleading bona fide pe{sonal requirement, separate
classification of such landlords were held to be justified as such
classification must be held to be in consonance with the
objective sought to be achieved and provision not
F unconstitutional. Accordingly, in the aforesaid decision, this
Court held that Section 258 does not suffer from excessive
delegation. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of this
Court in this case and considering the special provisions made
in Section 258 of the Act, we conclude that Section 258 of the
-
G Act is a complete code by which the entire procedure to be
adopted for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide
requirement filed by the landlord in respect of a premises, shall
-
be followed. As noted herein earlier, Section 258(1) clearly
says that any application filed by a landlord for recovery of
H
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 753
LRS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
possession of any premises, inter alia, on the ground of A
Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act, shall be dealt with in
accordance with the procedure specified in Section 258 of the
Rent Act. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section 258 makes it
clear that if any application for eviction of a tenant is filed by
the landlord, the special procedure indicated in Section 258 B
has to be followed and Section 258(1) clearly stipulates that .
-- .. the application for eviction shall be strictly dealt with in
accordance with the procedure specified in this Section .
22. Apart from that, as we have noted herein earlier,
Section 258 itself is a special code and therefore, Rent
c
Controller, while dealing with an application for eviction of a
tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement, has to follow
strictly in compliance with Section 258 of the Act. Therefore,
after insertion of Section 258 of the Act, any application for
granting eviction for a special kind of landlord, shall be dealt D
with strictly in compliance with Section 258 and question of
relying on Rule 23 of the Code, which also does not give full
right to apply the provisions of the Code, could be applied.
- 23. That apart, Rule 23 does not specifically confer any
power on the Controller to follow the provisions of the Code in
E
special classes of landlords. It is a general rule, by which the
Controller in deciding any question relating to procedure not
specifically provided by the Act and these rules shall, as far as
possible, be guided by the provisions contained in the Code. F
24. In view of our discussions made hereinabove that
Section 258 has been inserted by the Legislature for eviction
of a tenant of a certain classes of landlords, in which the entire
procedure has been given, it is difficult for us to hold that Rule
23 of the Rules can be applied in the present case in view of G
,. . the specific provisions provided in Section 258 of the Rent Act.
Accordingly, we are of the view that Rule 23 has no manner of
application.
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 25. That being the position, if Rule 23 cannot be applied
in the present case because of applicability of Section 258,
which is a special code and specific procedure for eviction of
a tenant by a landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement,
we cannot agree with the courts below that in view of Rule 23
8 of the Rules, the provisions of the Code can be applied in the
present case and, therefore, we are of the view that the High
Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the --
exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of eviction
and in allowing the affidavit filed by the tenant for the purpose
c of defending the proceedings for eviction.
26. That apart, from a perusal of the order of the High Court
and also of the Rent Controller, it would be evident that the High
Court had relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Mohd. Quresh vs. Smt. Roopa Fotedar & Ors. (1990
D (1) ILR 16] and held in favour of the tenant/respondent. In Mohd.
Quresh (supra), another decision of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Gurditta Mal vs. Bal Sarup [AIR 1980 Delhi 216] was
relied on to come to a conclusion that in view of Rule 23 of the
Rules, the Rent Controller was conferred with the power to
E entertain an application under Order 37 Rule 4 read with -
Section 151 of the Code.
27. We may now note that the High Court, relying on Mohd.
Quresh (supra) which had relied on the decision of Gurditta Mal
F (supra) held that the application under Order 37 Rule 4 read
with Section 151 was entertainable by the Rent Controller. In
our view, the High Court, while deciding the present case had ...
failed to notice that the decision in Gurditta Mal (supra) was
considered in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case
of Prakash H Jain v. Ms. Marie Fernandes (Al R 2003 SC
G
4591 ). In para 8 at page 4593 of the aforesaid decision, this . --
Court observed as follows:-
"In Gurditta Mal v. Bal Swarup (AIR 1980 Delhi 216) a
learned Single Judge of the said High Court chose to infer
H
'
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (D) THROUGH 755
LRS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
conferment of power under Rule 23 of the Delhi Rent A
Control Rules, 1959, though such power was not conferred
under the statute, by relying upon Section 151 CPC which
in our view could not have been, having regard to the very
nature and content of power under Section 151 and its
-·- inapplicability to Authorities other than ordinary courts" B
Again in para 1O at page 4594, this Court observed as
• under:-
"We have carefully considered the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing on eithe"r side. Questions of the c
nature raised before us have to be considered not only on
the nature and character. of the Authority, whether it is court
or not but also on the nature of powers conferred on such
Authority or Court, the scheme underlying the provisions
«_· of the Act concerned and the' nature of powers, the extant D
thereof or the limitations, if any, contained therein with
particular reference to the intention of the Legislature as
well, found expressed therein. There is no,such thing as
'/ any inherent power of court to condone delay in filing a
proceedings before CourVAuthority concerned, unless the E
law warrants and permits it, since it has a tendency to alter
the rights accrued to one or the other partly under the
statute concerned."
28. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
- hereinearlier and in view of our findings that there was no
F
reason for us not to rely on the decision of Prakash H. Jain
(supra), only because that decision was rendered under the·
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, whereas the present case has
been filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, but on comparing
,,, the aforesaid two Acts and in view of the observations and B
principles laid down by this Court in Prakash H. Jain (supra),
as noted hereinearlier, we are of the view that the provisions
under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the provisions
under the Delhi Rent Control Act are pari materia and therefore,
the decision in the case of Prakash H. Jain (supra) practically_ H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
"
A overrules the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in Mohd.
Quresh (supra) and Gurditta Mal (supra).
29. For the reasons aforesaid, we are therefore of the view
that the High Court has acted illegally and with material
irregularity in the exercise of tts jurisdiction in affirming the order
B
of the Additional Rent Controlle1 whereby the Additional Rent
Controller had allowed the app ication for setting aside the
order of eviction and restored the application for leave to
contest the eviction proceeding when such power, in our view,
was not conferred on the Rent Controller to entertain such an
c application filed by the tenanUrespondent.
30. There is another aspect of this matter. It is difficult to
understand how an application for leave to contest having been
rejected, may be on the ground of delay, could be allowed when
~
D it is not disputed by the tenant respondent that no application
for condonation of delay could be entertained by the Rent
Controller as the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 could
not be attracted. ,,
31 ..That apart, we have also carefully examined the special
E
reason given by the tenanVrespondent in the original application
for leave to contest and the present application after order of
eviction was passed. On a reading of these two applications,
we find that the same defence was taken by the tenant after
the order of eviction was passed and therefore, we do not think
F that such reason can be considered to be a special reason
within the meaning of Order 37 Rule 4 of the Code for allowing
the tenant to defend the proceedings if Order 37 Rule 4 of the
Code applies to a special Act.
-
G 32. For all the reasons aforesaid, the order of eviction
passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 28th of February,
2001 stands restored, the impugned order of the High Court
as well as the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, are
set aside and the application filed by the landlord under Section
H 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act stands allowed.
PRITHIPAL SINGH v. SATPAL SINGH (0) THROUGH 757
LRS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.)
>
33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present A
case, we grant time to the tenanUrespondent to vacate the
tenanted premises within a period of six months from this date
provided the tenanUrespondent files an usual undertaking in this
Court within one month.
B
-- 34. In the event, if no undertaking is filed within a month
mentioned hereinabove, it will be open for the landlord/appellant
to proceed and take delivery of possession in accordance with
law.
35. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as C
to costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed .
..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "eviction"Sign in to search