2010 (9) TMI 1079 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court correctly affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller by which the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend in the eviction proceeding filed against her by the respondent under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter the said Act )?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Application of the law in eviction proceedings.
3. Effect of subsequent Constitution Bench judgment on previous decisions.
4. Relationship between landlord and tenant in the context of Section 14-D.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in this case challenged a judgment regarding an eviction proceeding under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The High Court affirmed the order dismissing the appellant's application for leave to defend. The respondent, a widow, sought possession of the premises for her own residential purposes, claiming the tenanted premises were let out by the previous owner, not by her or her husband. The Additional Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction petition on this ground, but the High Court set aside this order, interpreting Section 14-D broadly to include letting out by the predecessor-in-interest of the widow.

2. The appellant argued that the High Court's decision conflicted with a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment in Nathi Devi, which clarified the limited scope of Section 14-D. The Constitution Bench held that the provision benefits only widows who or whose husbands let out the premises, excluding widows who acquired the property through sale or transfer. The Court emphasized that the premises must have been let out by the widow or her husband for the widow to invoke Section 14-D for eviction.

3. The Supreme Court, following the authoritative interpretation in Nathi Devi, found the High Court's judgment erroneous. The Court held that the Constitution Bench decision clarified the law on Section 14-D, making it binding on all subordinate courts. As the appellant was a pre-existing tenant before the property purchase by the respondent's husband, Section 14-D did not apply for her eviction. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and emphasizing the respondent's right to initiate eviction proceedings if desired.

4. Additionally, the appellant argued there was no landlord-tenant relationship between her and the respondent. However, the Court, relying on the Nathi Devi judgment, did not delve into this issue, as the interpretation of Section 14-D was determinative in this case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, clarifying the inapplicability of Section 14-D for the appellant's eviction and granting the respondent the option to pursue lawful eviction proceedings if necessary.