http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 10641  of  1999

PETITIONER: LIAQ AHMED & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/04/2000

BENCH: S. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.

Leave granted. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Rent  control legilsations have been acknowledged to  be pieces  of  social legislation which seek to strike  a  just@@             JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ balance  between  the  rights  of   the  landlord  and   the@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ requirements  of the tenants.  Such legislations prevent the landlords  from  taking  the extreme step  of  evicting  the tenants  merely upon technicalities or carved grounds.  This Court  in Mangat Ram vs.  Kedar Nath [1980(4) SCC 276]  held that  where  the  Rent  Acts afford a  real  and  sanctified protection  to the tenant, the same should not be  nullified by  giving a hyper-technical or liberal construction to  the language  of  the  statute which instead  of  advancing  the object  of the Act may result in its frustration.  The  Rent Acts  have primarily been enacted to give protection to  the tenants.

   The  history of the legislation regarding Rent  Controls in the country would show that the Rent Acts were enacted to overcome the difficulties arising out of the scarcity of the accommodation  which  arose primarily due to the  growth  of industrialisation  and  commercialisation and inflow of  the population  to  the  urban areas.   Such  legislations  were initially  confined to the big cities like Bombay,  Calcutta and Rangoon but their jurisdiction was gradually extended to other  areas  in  the country.  Because of scarcity  of  the accommodation  and  gradual  rise  in   the  rents  due   to appreciation of the value of urban properties, the landlords were  found to be in a position to exploit the situation for their  unjustified  personal gains which  were  consequently detrimental  to  the helpless tenants who were subjected  to uncalled  for  litigation  for  eviction.   It  thus  became imperative  for the Legislature to intervene to protect  the tenants against harassment and exploitation by the landlords for  which  appropriate  legislations came to be  passed  by almost  all the States and Union Territories in the  country

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

with  the  paramount object of essentially safeguarding  the interest  of  tenants and for their benefit.  The Rent  Acts also  made  provision  for  safeguarding  the  interests  of genuine  landlords.  The Rent Acts are intended to  preserve social   environment   and  promote    social   justice   by safeguarding  the interests of the tenants mainly and at the same  time  protecting  the   legitimate  interests  of  the landlords.   The provisions of the Rent Acts are, therefore, not  required to be interpreted in a hyper-technical  manner which  in  cases  may result in frustrating the  object  for which  the legislation was made.  It should be kept in  mind that  the  Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of  the tenants  for  whose benefits they were  essentially  passed. The  rational  approach in interpreting the law relating  to the  control  of rents is expected from the  courts  dealing with  the  cases  under  the statutes relating  to  rent  by keeping  in  mind the object of the legislation intended  to provide  social justice preventing unscrupulous landlord  to exploit the circumstances and force the tenants to submit to their pressure under the threat of eviction.

   Delhi  Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")  has  also been enacted to provide for the control  of rents and evictions of the tenants from the premises covered by  the  Act.   Section 2(e) and (l) define  ’landlord’  and ’tenant’  respectively.   Section 14 provides protection  to the tenants against eviction.  Eviction against a tenant can be  ordered  by  the  Rent Controller only  on  the  grounds specified  in  various clauses and sub-sections of the  said Section.   Section  14(A)  to 14(D) confer rights  upon  the landlord  to recover immediate possession of premises on the grounds  mentioned  therein.   Section   15  specifies   the circumstances  where  the tenant can get protection  against his eviction.  If the eviction of the tenant is sought under Section  14(1)(e) of the Act, as was the prayer made by  the respondent  herein, the tenant of the premises upon  service of  the summons can pray to obtain leave from the Controller to  defend  the  case.   Sub-section   (5)  of  Section  25B provides:   "25B(5) The Controller shall give to the  tenant leave  to contest the application if the affidavit filed  by the  tenant  discloses  such facts as would  disentitle  the landlord  from  obtaining  an  order  for  the  recovery  of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e)  of  the  proviso to sub-section (1) of Section  14,  or under Section 14-A."

   From  the scheme of the Act it is evident that if tenant discloses  grounds  and pleads a cause which prima facie  is

not  baseless,  unreal  and  unfounded,  the  Controller  is

obliged  to  grant him leave to defend his case against  the eviction  sought by the landlord.  The enquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary enquiry to prima facie find out the existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the tenant.  If the  tenant  brings  to the notice of the  Controller,  such facts  as  would disentitle the landlord from  obtaining  an order  for recovery of possession, the Controller shall give him  leave to contest.  The law envisages the disclosure  of facts  and not the proof of the facts.  In the instant  case the  Controller  as  well as the High Court appear  to  have completely   ignored   the  object  of  the   Rent   Control legislation and the scheme of the Act while dealing with the case of the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

   The  facts  in the present case are that the  respondent claiming  to  be  the  owner on the basis  of  a  sale  deed executed  in his favour on 25th November, 1991 registered on 27th  November,  1991, filed a petition seeking eviction  of the  appellants on the ground of his bonafide requirement as contemplated under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the  Act.   The  claim of the landlord was resisted  by  the appellants  on  the  ground that the property,  the  subject matter  of  litigation, is vested in the Custodian of  Enemy Properties for India which could not be alienated or sold to the  respondent-landlord.  Reliance was placed on Section 18 of  the Enemy Properties Act, 1968.  It was further  pleaded that  under  Section 19 of the said Act the Rent  Controller had  no jurisdiction.  The appellants further submitted that the  sale deed in favour of the respondent was not legal and genuine  as  the same was allegedly made by persons who  had become  Pakistani  nationals and had thus legally  forfeited their  title,  rights  and interests in the  property.   The appellants further pleaded that they had become owner of the property by adverse possession.

   Appearing  for  the  appellants   Shri  Bargi,   learned Advocate  has submitted that his clients forego their  claim of  being  the owners of the property by adverse  possession and  restrict their claim to be the tenants thereof having a right to resist the claim of the respondent and to remain in possession of the property in accordance with the provisions of law applicable in the case.

   In  support of their case the appellants had relied upon Annexure  P-1  which was an intimation by the  Custodian  of

Enemy  Properties  for  India  to  the  grandfather  of  the

appellants to the effect that the property had vested in the custodian  of  enemy  properties for India.   The  aforesaid communication read as under:

   "With  reference to your letter dated 30.9.70 I have  to state  that  the  above premises vests in the  Custodian  of Enemy  Property for India.  The Tehsildar, Tis Hazari, Delhi has  been  authorised  by the Custodian to collect  rent  in respect  of the premises.  You are, therefore, requested  to pay  the  rent to the above mentioned Tehsildar against  his official  receipt under intimation to this office." The Rent Controller  negatived  the plea of the appellants by  taking into  consideration  order dated 30th March, 1954 passed  by the  Assistant  Custodian  (Judicial)  in  relation  to  the premises  whereby property No.1761 situated at Ward  No.XIX, Delhi had declared as non evacuee property.  It appears that the  Rent  Controller failed to see the distinction  between the  Evacuee  Property Act under which the order dated  30th March,  1954  was  passed and the Enemy Property  Act,  1968 regarding  which letter Exhibit P-1 dated 15th October, 1970 was  issued intimating that the property, the subject matter of  the  litigation,  had vested in the Custodian  of  Enemy Properties  for  India.   The  question as  to  whether  the property  had actually vested or not, the consequence of its vesting or non-vesting and the authenticity of the sale deed relied  upon  by  the respondent, were the  questions  which could  be determined only at the trial after the  appellants were   granted   leave  to  contest   the   claim   of   the respondent-landlord.   The  pleas raised by  the  appellants could  not, in any way, be termed to be frivolous, baseless,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

unreal  and  unfounded.   If  that   be  the  position,  the Controller  was  obliged  to  grant   the  leave  and  after affording  the  parties  opportunity, adjudicate  the  rival claims.   Thus the orders of the Rent Controller and that of the High Court suffers from inherent legal infirmities which are required to be set aside.

   Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed by setting aside  the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.10.1997 and that  of  the High Court dated 16.4.1999, impugned  in  this appeal.   The appellants herein are granted leave to  defend the eviction petition in terms of the provisions of the Act. The  Rent  Controller is, however, directed to expedite  the disposal  of  the petition filed by the  respondent-landlord after  affording  the  parties   reasonable  opportunity  of proving their cases.  No costs.