9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 2. Applicability of the proviso to Section 14(2) concerning previous benefits under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. 3. Entitlement of tenants to the benefit of non-eviction under Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act after having benefited under Section 13(2) of the 1952 Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This section provides that no order for the recovery of possession shall be made if the tenant makes the required payment or deposit as stipulated by Section 15. The proviso to Section 14(2) states that no tenant shall be entitled to this benefit if they have already obtained such benefit once and then defaulted again for three consecutive months. The court had to determine whether the benefit derived under Section 13(2) of the 1952 Act could be considered under the 1958 Act. 2. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 14(2) Concerning Previous Benefits Under the 1952 Act: The appellants argued that the tenants had already received the benefit of non-eviction under Section 13(2) of the 1952 Act and should not be entitled to the same benefit again under Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act. The respondents contended that the benefit derived under the 1952 Act should not preclude them from obtaining the benefit under the 1958 Act. The court examined whether the proviso to Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act, which restricts the benefit to tenants who have not obtained it previously, should include benefits derived under the 1952 Act. 3. Entitlement of Tenants to the Benefit of Non-Eviction Under Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act After Having Benefited Under Section 13(2) of the 1952 Act: The Additional Rent Controller, Rent Control Tribunal, and the High Court had all ruled in favor of the tenants, stating that the benefit obtained under the 1952 Act did not bar them from receiving the benefit under the 1958 Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the benefit under Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act is contingent upon the tenant making a deposit as required by Section 15 of the 1958 Act. Since the deposit made under Section 13(2) of the 1952 Act is excluded by Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act, the tenants were entitled to the benefit of non-eviction under the 1958 Act despite having received a similar benefit under the 1952 Act. The court emphasized that the Legislature's intent was to remove the vice of the 1952 Act, which allowed tenants to repeatedly default and still avoid eviction by making payments on the first hearing. However, the court concluded that the specific language of Section 14(2) and its proviso in the 1958 Act did not support the appellants' interpretation that previous benefits under the 1952 Act should be considered. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the tenants were entitled to the benefit of non-eviction under Section 14(2) of the 1958 Act, despite having previously benefited under Section 13(2) of the 1952 Act. The court found no reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal and the High Court, and there was no order as to costs.
|
