1984 (10) TMI 246 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Relevance of the special order dated December 24, 1975.
2. Maintainability of the eviction application under Section 14A(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. Interpretation and applicability of Section 14A(1) and its proviso.
4. Suitability of alternative accommodation for the landlord.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Relevance of the Special Order Dated December 24, 1975:

The Appellant contended that the Respondent was not entitled to rely on the special order dated December 24, 1975, as it was signed on September 25, 1976, suggesting manipulation. The Court found this order irrelevant as the foundation of the eviction application was not the special order but the general order dated September 9, 1975, and its clarification on December 12, 1975. The Court noted that the government policy had been modified over time, but such modifications were not relevant to the present appeal.

2. Maintainability of the Eviction Application under Section 14A(1):

The maintainability of the eviction application was challenged on two grounds:
(1) The Respondent was not in occupation of the government accommodation on the date of filing the application.
(2) The Respondent was already residing in his own premises at the time of filing the application.

The Court rejected the first ground, stating that Section 14A(1) does not require the landlord to be in occupation of the government accommodation on the date of filing the application. The section aims to provide an additional ground for eviction to landlords required to vacate government accommodation due to owning residential premises in Delhi.

3. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 14A(1) and its Proviso:

The Court examined whether a landlord who vacates government accommodation and moves into other premises owned by him can maintain an application under Section 14A(1). The Court concluded that such a landlord cannot maintain the application if he has other premises available for his residential accommodation. The proviso to Section 14A(1) restricts landlords owning two or more dwelling houses from recovering possession of more than one. Thus, a landlord who has moved into other premises owned by him cannot file an application under Section 14A(1).

4. Suitability of Alternative Accommodation for the Landlord:

The Court addressed whether a landlord could file an application under Section 14A(1) if the alternative premises owned by him were not reasonably suitable for his accommodation. The Court held that Section 14A does not contain a condition regarding the suitability of alternative accommodation. If the alternative premises are not suitable, the landlord must proceed under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1), which considers the suitability of alternative accommodation. The Rent Controller erred in considering the respective needs and suitability of the accommodation occupied by the Respondent.

Conclusion:

The Court summarized its conclusions as follows:
1. It is not necessary for the landlord to be in occupation of the government accommodation on the date of filing the eviction application under Section 14A(1).
2. A landlord with other premises available for his residential accommodation cannot maintain an application under Section 14A(1).
3. If the alternative premises are not reasonably suitable, the landlord must file an application under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1).

The Court allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the Delhi High Court, and dismissed the eviction suit filed by the Respondent. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Appellant costs quantified at Rs. 800.