1986 (2) TMI 253 - SC - Indian Laws

Evection - Delhi rent control act - parliament intention - Held that - . Parliamentary intention may be gathered from several sources. First, of course, it must be gathered from the statute itself, next from the preamble to the statute, next from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, thereafter from parliamentary debates, reports of committees and commissions which preceded the legislation and finally from all legitimate and admissible sources from where there may be light. Regard must be had to legislative history too. So we see that the primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and tenancy status of the premises.
2. Validity of the subtenancy and entitlement to protection under Sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and legislative intent.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
5. Conduct of the parties involved and its impact on the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership and Tenancy Status of the Premises:
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal concurrently found that Balbir Nath Mathur was the owner of the premises, that Om Prakash & Company was the tenant, and that Girdhari Lal & Sons were the subtenants under Om Prakash & Company. The appellants contended that they were direct tenants of Balbir Nath Mathur and not subtenants, but this was rejected based on the concurrent findings.

2. Validity of the Subtenancy and Entitlement to Protection under Sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The appellants claimed that they were entitled to protection under Sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Section 17(1) requires the previous consent in writing of the landlord for subletting and notice to the landlord within one month of subletting. Section 18(1) grants protection to subtenants from eviction if these conditions are met. The court found that the letter attested by Balbir Nath Mathur constituted written consent and notice, satisfying the requirements of Sections 17 and 18, thereby entitling the appellants to protection against eviction.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Legislative Intent:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting statutes to ascertain the intention of the legislature. The court discussed various principles of statutory interpretation, including the need to give effect to the purpose and object of the legislation, even if it requires departing from the plain meaning of the words. The court highlighted that the Delhi Rent Control Act aims to prevent unreasonable eviction and protect subtenants who have obtained the landlord's consent.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Delhi Rent Control Act:
The court noted that Rule 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Rules requires notice of subtenancy to be in Form "E" and served as per Rule 22. The essence of the requirement is that the consent to the subtenancy and the notice of its creation must be evidenced by writing signed by the landlord and the tenant or subtenant. The court found that the letter attested by Balbir Nath Mathur met these requirements, thus entitling the appellants to protection under Sections 17 and 18.

5. Conduct of the Parties Involved and Its Impact on the Case:
The court observed that the conduct of Balbir Nath Mathur and Om Prakash & Company was dubious and aimed at defeating the appellants. The court noted that the appellants had not respected their undertaking to withdraw the suit for fixation of fair rent, but given the conduct of the landlord, the court allowed the appeal. The judgment emphasizes that the protection under Sections 17 and 18 is generally available only if the specific conditions are met, but in this exceptional case, the court found in favor of the appellants due to the peculiar facts and the landlord's conduct.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the court directed that the rent for the premises be fixed at Rs 3600 per month from January 1, 1985, onwards. The suit filed by the appellants for fixation of fair rent was declared dismissed as withdrawn. The court emphasized the importance of legislative intent and the need to interpret statutes in a manner that advances their purpose, while also highlighting the exceptional nature of this case.

← Previous Next →