9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (12) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnment at Nanakpura, New Delhi. By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and was, therefore, liable to vacate the premises allotted to. him by the Government. The respondent was paying to the Government a monthly rent of ₹ 65.05 but since he did not vacate the premises as required, the Government started charging him after January 1, 1976 a monthly rent of ₹ 509.50 at the market rate. The respondent owns a house bearing No. 5014, Ward No. XII, at Roshanara Road, New Delhi. A part of that house is in the occupation of the appellants at a monthly rent of ₹ 6.25. On being asked to vacate the official quarters, the respondent gave to the appellants a notice to quit and followed it up by filing an application for eviction against them under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act. On March 12, 1976 the appellants filed before the Rent Controllor 11--1546 SC1/76 an affidavit under s. 25B(4) of the Delhi Rent Act, setting out the grounds on which they sought to contest the application for eviction and asking for leave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Act, in so far as it applied to the Union territory of Delhi, was repealed by s. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. This latter Act was passed in order to provide a suitable machinery for expeditious adjudication of proceedings between landlords and tenants; to provide for the determination of standard rent payable by tenants; and to give to the tenants a large measure of protection against eviction. Section 14 of the Act of 1958 affords to tenants substantially the same measure of protection which was available to them under section 13 of the Act of 1952. While the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act of 1952 was in force, the Parliament enacted the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, in order to provide for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in certain Union territories including Delhi, and for the protection of tenants in such areas from' eviction . Section 19(1) of that Act, as originally enacted, made all decrees and orders for eviction of tenants in. slum areas unexecutable, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. The vires of section 19 was challanged in Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) Amendment Act, 1964, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or (b) Where any decree or order is ob- tained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order. (2) Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of such application, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the .circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission. (4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namely :-- (a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted; (b) whether the eviction is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or authority, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent Child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him: .... S.25A. Provisions of this Chapter to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law, for the time being in force. 25B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction. -- (1 ) Every application by a landlord for the 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, shall be dealt with in accordance with the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, or the Delhi Tenants' (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956. Sections 14A, 25A, 25B, and 25C were introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which came into force on December 1, 1975. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)Act, 18 of 1976, which was given effect from the date of the ordinance. Sections 25A, 25B and 25C are contained in a newly introduced chapter, IIIA, called Summary Trial of Certain Applications . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised the following points: (1) Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act does nothing more than to. confer a right on a class of landlords to sue for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, which right was not available to that class under clause (e) of the proviso to s. 14 of that Act. A person occupying premises allotted to him by the Government could not before the enactment of s. 14A evict his own tenant because, so long as he was in possession of the accommodation allotted to him by the Government he could not satisfy the requirement of clause (e) that he should have no other reasonably suitable residential accommoda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they depend for their validity on the thesis that the Slum Clearance Act must in any event have precedence over the Delhi Rent Act in all matters arising under the latter Act, it would be helpful to deal straight away with that contention. Section 14A, and Chapter IlI A containing ss. 25A, 25B and 25C, were introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which was later replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 18 of 1976. The amending Act was given effect from the date on which the ordinance was published, namely, from December 1, 1975. By s. 25B every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1) or under s. 14A has be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in the section. Section 25A, which is the first of the collocation of sections appearing in Chapter IIIA, provides that the provisions of that Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time being in force. The marginal note to s. 25A reads: provisions of this Chapter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er IIIA. That is the prescription of s. 25B(1). In order expressly to exclude the operation of all provisions inconsistent with Chapter IIIA whether such provisions are contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law like the Slum Clearance Act, s. 25A was put on the statute book. That section gives an over-riding effect to the provisions of Chapter IIIA. But the legislature did not rest content by providing merely that the procedural provisions contained in Chapter IIIA would have such over-riding effect. It took the precaution of making an additional provision in s. 14A itself that on and from the date of the order passed by the Central Government or any local authority calling upon a per-son to vacate the residential accommodation allotted to him, there shall -accrue to such person a right to recover immediately the possession of any premises let out by him, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary .... The provisions of s. 14A must, there- fore, prevail over anything contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to anything inconsistent therewith contained either in the Delhi Rent Act itself or in any other law. Section 14A provides that there shall accrue a right to the lanlord to recover immediately possession of any premises. let out by him notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time being in force. In the context, the word anything would ordinarily mean anything to the contrary , but the point of the matter is that the legislature. has expressed its intention clearly and unequivocally in more than one way, that the provisions of s. 14A and Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act would have precedence over anything else contained in that Act itself or in any other law. Section 25C contained in Chapter IIIA points in the same direction. Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Act provides that where a landlord has acquired any premises by trans- fer, no application for the recovery of possession thereof shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition. A person who acquires by allotment any premises from the Central Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e object and purpose of a legislation assume greater relevance if the language of the law is obscure and ambiguous.But, it must be stated that we have referred to the object of the provisions newly introduced into the Delhi Rent Act in 1975 nor for seeking light from it for resolving an ambiguity, for there is none, but for a different purpose altogether. When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a non-obstante clause stating that its provisions will over-ride those of any other law, stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration.A piquant situation, like the one before us, arose in Shri Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking Industrial Co. Ltd., [1956] S.C.R. 603 the competing statutes being the Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended by Act 52 of 1953,and the Displaced persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. Section 45A of the Banking Companies Act, which was introduced by the amending Act of 1953, and s. 3 of the Displaced Persons Act 1951 contained each a non-obstante clause, pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as between the two Acts is concluded by that decision and we must therefore hold that the conflicting provisions of the two Acts must operate together with equal efficacy, with the result that the previous permission of the competent authority under the Slum Clearance Act must be obtained before instituting any proceeding under Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act. This submission overlooks that in Jyoti Prasad's case (supra) which was decided in 1961, the Court did not have before it the amendments introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by the amending Act of 1976, and therefore no question arose as to the effect of the non-obstante clauses contained in ss. 14A and 25A of the Delhi Rent Act. The decision is therefore not an authority for the proposition for which the appellants contend and the question arising before us cannot be held to be concluded by that decision. The argument of implied repeal has also no substance in it because our reason for according priority to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act is not that the Slum Clearance Act stands impliedly repealed protanto. Bearing in mind the language of the two laws, their object and purpose, and the fact that one of them i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
