http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: NIHAL CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALYAN CHAND JAIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1977

BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  259            1978 SCR  (2) 183  1978 SCC  (1)  49  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1979 SC 460  (11)  APL        1982 SC  25  (8)  D          1984 SC 458  (7)

ACT: Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, S. 144(1) read with s. 25 [B]- Construction of S. 14A(1)-Cause of action to sue u/s  14A(1) when ’accrues’.

HEADNOTE: Pursuant  to the decision of the Government dated  September 9,  1975 that Government servants who owned houses in  their own  names  or  in  the name  of  their  families  and  were occupying  Government  accommodation should be  required  to vacate  Government  accommodation allotted  to  them  within three  months from 1st October 1975 and that in  default  of their  vacating  Government accommodation  by  December  31, 1975,  they  should be charged enhanced licence fee  at  the market  rates, the appellant, landlord a Government  servant who was in occupation of a government accommodation  bearing No.  B-11/ 791 situated at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi was  also served  with  a general Order dated Sept. 30, 1975  to  that effect.  The appellant, who in his own name owned a two  and half storied residential house bearing No. W-43, Green Park, New  Delhi filed an application u/s 14A(1) read with S.  25B of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance 1975 (No. 24 of  1975)  for eviction of the  respondent-tenant  from  the first  floor  of his house, on the ground that he  had  been asked  to vacate the Government accommodation on account  of his  owning a house in the Union Territory of Delhi and  had incurred an obligation to pay penal licence fee in  default. In response to the summons served upon him, the  respondent- tenant filed, on January 16, 1976, an application  supported by a detailed affidavit seeking leave to contest and  defend the case on various grounds viz. : (1) The summary procedure provided u/s 25B was available not for an application  filed u/s 14A(1) but only for an application seeking eviction  u/s 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (ii) Even  otherwise since according to the landlord’s own showing he had retired from  Government  service  on November  30,  1975  and-  was therefore,  liable to vacate the  Government  accommodation, the  application  u/s 14A(1) was not maintainable  in  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

words  S.  14A(1)  was not meant for  a  retired  Government servant or a Government servant who was transferred  outside Delhi;  (iii) The application seeking his eviction  was  not filed  bona  fide  inasmuch as  the  appellant-landlord  had earlier   filed   in  application   No.   497/1975   seeking respondent’s  eviction  from the premises on the  ground  of bona fide personal requirement u/s 14(1)(c) which had (iv)The  application  for  eviction was  wholly  mala  fide because the premises werelet out initially at a rent of Rs.  300/-  per month which was increased to Rs.  350/-  per month  w.e.f. October 1, 1971 and thereafter it was  further increased  to Rs. 400/- per month and further  because  when the  ground  floor  premises of the house  in  question  had fallen  vacant on two occasions prior to the filing  of  the application  the landlord instead of himself  occupying  the said  premises  had let out the same at higher  rents.   The appellant  landlord refuted these contentions and  explained the  circumstances Why he had let out portions of his  house after  these  had fallen vacant during the pendency  of  his earlier  eviction  application and prior to his  filing  the instant application. By  his  order dated August 11, 1976,  the  Rent  Controller Delhi,   negatived   all  the  contentions  urged   by   the Respondent-tenant, rejected his prayer for granting leave to contest  and defend the proceedings and passed an  order  of eviction against him u/s 14A(1) directing the respondent  to deliver vacant possession of the premises in his  occupation to the appellant-landlord within two months from the date of the   order.   The  Revision  applications  filed   by   The respondent ’was allowed by the Delhi High Court which held : (1) S. 14A((1) would not be available to a landlord who  was an  allottee  of  the  Government  accommodation  of   whose allotment  was  liable  to be cancelled  by  virtue  of  his retirement from service or transfer outside Delhi. (ii) The 184 provision  of  S.  14 A(1) as  also  the  summary  procedure provided  u/s 25B of the Act were  extraordinary  provisions intended to ensure expeditious eviction of tenants who  were in  occupation  of residential accommodation owned  by  such allottees of Govt. accommodation who were required to vacate by  virtue  of their ownership of such  accommodation,  that these  provisions were intended to deal with hard cases  and that no landlord should be permitted to take undue advantage thereof, if he was required to vacate Govt. accommodation by virtue of his retirement or transfer and (iii) on the  facts of  the  case the appellant was not entitled to  invoke  the provisions  of S. 14A(1) of the Act inasmuch as even  before the  application  was  filed he  had  already  retired  from service  and  was  on  that account  liable  to  vacate  the Government accommodation. Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court, HELD  (1)  The  object of S. 14A is to  confer  a  right  on certain  landlords to recover "immediate possession  of  the premises"  belonging to them and which are in possession  of their  tenants  provided they are required to  vacate  Govt. accommodation  in their occupation by a general or  specific order.   Such  a right is "to accrue" to a landlord  on  his satisfying the following conditions : (a) Such landlord must be in occupation of a residential accommodation allotted  to him  by the Central Government or any local  authority;  and (b)  such a landlord must have been required to vacate  such residential  accommodation  or in default to  incur  certain obligations  by  any general or special order made  by  that Government  or authority on the ground that he owns  in  the Union Territory of Delhi a residential accommodation  either

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

in  his  own name or in the name of his wife,  or  dependent child.   To  such  a landlord who  satisfies  the  aforesaid conditions the right to evict his tenant accrues "on or from the  date  of such order" (meaning the  general  or  special order  by  which he is required to vacate or in  default  he incurs  certain obligations).  The crucial words are ’on  or from the date of such order." with the result that the cause of  action  accrues to the landlord on the date when  he  is served  with the general or special order requiring  him  to vacate  or  incur obligations, though the speedy  remedy  to secure possession of that cause of actioncould  be  said to have been made available to him only with the cominginto force of the Ordinance No. 24 of 1975. [189 D-G] (2)  In the instant case, the appellant landlord is entitled to  invoke the provisions of S. 14A(1)  notwithstanding  the fact  that he had retired from service w.e.f.  November  30, 1975.   Pursuant to Central Government’s decision  taken  in that behalf on September 9, 1975, a general order, requiring him to vacate the Govt. accommodation or in default to incur obligation of payment of penal licencefee  on  the  ground that he owns a residential accommodation in his own name  in the Union Territory of Delhi was served upon the  appellant- landlordon  Sept.  30,  1975, which was  much  before  his retirement, which took Place on November 30, 1975.  In other words  when the cause of action arose or the right to  evict his  tenant accrued to him, the appellant landlord was  very much  in  service.  This is not a case where  the  right  to evict   has  accrued  to  a  government   servant   landlord simultaneously  with or after his retirement  from  service. [190 G, 191 C-D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1977  Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order  dated 6-12-76  of  the  Delhi High Court  in  Civil  Revision  No. 562/176. Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bahadur Sahairy a for tile Appellant. Radha  Krishna Makhija, S. K. Mehta and P. N. Puri  for  the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR,  J.- This appeal by special leave  is  directed against the judgment and order dated December 6, 1976 of the Delhi High 185 Court  dismissing the appellant-landlord’s  application  for eviction under s. 14A(1) read with s. 25B of the Delhi  Rent Control Act 1958, ,which provisions were inserted therein by Delhi  Rent  Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975  (No.24  of 1975)  subsequently  replaced  by  the  Delhi  Rent  Control (Amendment) Act No. 18 of 1976. The appellant-landlord being a Government servant was at the material  time in occupation of a residential  accommodation bearing No.B-11/791,situated at Lodhi Colony, New  Delhi,the same having been allotted to him by the Central  Government. It  appears  that  he  ,owns  a  two  and  a  half   storied residential  house bearing No. F-43, Green Park, New  Delhi, in his own name.  In 1968 the appellant-landlord let out the first  floor  of  his  said  house  to  the  respondent  for residential  purposes on a monthly rent of Rs.  300/-  which was later on increased to Rs. 400/- per month, exclusive  of electricity  and  water charges.  By a general  order  dated September  9,  1975, the Government of India.   Ministry  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

Works & Housing, Directorate of Estates, took a decision  in supersession  of  all previous orders on the  subject,  that Government  servants who have or own houses at the place  of their  posting, within the limits of any local or  adjoining municipality,  should  be  required  to  vacate   Government accommodation allotted to them within three months from  the 1st  of October, 1975 and that in default of their  vacating Government  accommodation by December 31, 1975, they  should be  charged  enhanced  licence  fee  at  the  market  rates. Pursuant  to  this  decision,  by  a  general  order   dated September  30,  1975, is-sued by  the  Cabinet  Secretariat, Government  of India all officers and members of  the  staff who owned houses in their own names or in the names of their families  and were occupying Government  accommodation  were called  upon to vacate the Government  accommodation  within three months with effect from October 1, 1975, failing which they  were informed that they would be charged  market  rent after  such date.  Copies ,of this order were circulated  to all offices and branches at headquarters and all  outstation offices  for information and in particular a copy  was  also forwarded  to the appellant-landlord who happened to be  the Accounts Officer, Pay and Accounts Office, Dept. of  Supply, Government of India.  In view of this order dated  September 30, 1975. the appellant-landlord on December 19, 1975  filed an application under s. 14A(1) read with s. 25B of the Delhi Rent  Control (Amendment) ’Ordinance, 1975 (No. 24 of  1975) for  eviction of the respondent tenant from the first  floor of house No. F-43, Green Park, New Delhi, on the ground that he had been asked to vacate the Government accommodation  on account  of  his owning a house in the  Union  Territory  of Delhiand  bad  incurred  an  obligation  to  pay  penal licence fee   in default. In  response  to  the  summons served upon him in accordance with theThird Schedule under s. 25D(2) of the said Ordinance the respondent-tenant  filed on  January 16, 1976 an application supported by a  detailed affidavit,  seeking leave to contest and defend the case  on several  grounds.  First, it was contended that the  summary procedure  provided  under s. 25B was available not  for  an application   filed  under  s.  14A(1)  but  only   for   an application seeking eviction on ground of personal bona fide requirement  under  s. 14(1) (c) of the Delhi  Rent  Control Act.   Secondly, it was contended that even otherwise  since according to the landlord’s own showing he had retired  from Government service 186 on  November 30, 1975 and was, therefore, liable  to  vacate the  Government  accommodation,  the  application  under  s. 14A(1)  was not maintainable in other words, s.  14A(1)  was not  meant for a retired Government servant or a  Government servant who was transferred outside Delhi.  Thirdly, it  was contended that the application seeking his. eviction was not filed  bona  fide  inasmuch as  the  appellant-landlord  had earlier  filed  an  application  No.  497  of  1975  seeking respondent’s  eviction  from the premises on the  ground  of bona fide personal requirement under s. 14(1) (e) which  had been  dismissed  by  the  Additional  Rent  Controller   on. December  17, 1975 inasmuch as his requirement could not  be considered to be bona fide.  Fourthly, it was contended that the  application for eviction was wholly mala  fide  because the premises, were let out initially at a rent of Rs.  300/- per  month which was increased to Rs. 350/- per  month  with effect  from October 1, 1971 and thereafter it  was  further increased  to Rs. 400/- per month and further  because  when the  ground  floor  premises of the house  in  question  had fallen  vacant on two occasions prior to the filing  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

application,  the landlord instead of himself occupying  the said  premises, had let out the same at. higher rents.   The appellant-landlord  refuted these contentions and  explained the  circumstances why he had let out portions of his  house after  these  had fallen vacant during the pendency  of  his earlier  eviction-application  and prior to his  filing  the instant application. By  his order dated August 11, 1976, Shri R. K.  Sain,  Rent Controller,  Delhi, negatived all the contentions that  were urged  by  tile respondent-tenant, rejected his  prayer  for granting  leave  to contest and defend the  proceedings  and passed  an order for eviction against him, under s.  14A  of the   Act  directing  the  respondent  to   deliver   vacant possession  of  the  premises  in  his  occupation  to   the appellant-landlord  within two months from the date  of  the order.   The Rent Controller took the view that the  summary procedure   under  s.  25B  had  been  made  applicable   to applications under s. 14A when Ordinance No. 24 of 1975  was replaced  by  Amending  Act 18 of  1975  with  retrospective effect,  that  s.  14A(1) was available  to  the  appellant- landlord  notwithstanding  his retirement  from  service  on November  30,  1975  inasmuch as  the  documents  on  record clearly  showed that he had been called upon to  vacate  the Government  accommodation not because of his retirement  but on  the ground of his owning a house in the Union  Territory of  Delhi  and that the cause of action accrued  to  him  on September 30, 1975 when he was served with the general order of  that date.. . .......... He also took the view that  the dismissal  of the earlier petition under s. 14 (1 ) (e)  had no  bearing on the instant application for eviction  because the  instant application was based on a different  cause  of action  requiring different set of facts to be proved  which the appellant-landlord bad proved in the case and  according to  him further the circumstances put forward by  appellant- landlord explaining why he had let out portions of the house in question prior to the coining into force of the Ordinance and  prior  to  his filing the instant  application  had  no bearing on the issue involved in the case.  Since  according to him the appellant-landlord had satisfied or fulfilled all the conditions.     14A and since the respondent-tenant  had not  made  out any care the grant of leave  to  contest  the proceedings, the Rent Controller 187 refused  leave  to contest the case to  the  respondent  and passed  the  eviction  order in  favour  of  the  appellant- landlord. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  Rent  Controller’s  order   the respondent-tenant preferred a Revisional Application (C.R.A. 562  of  1976)  to the Delhi High  Court.   This  revisional application  was heard along with a group of  other  similar revisional applications and all these were disposed of by  a common judgment by the High Court on December 6, 1976  since they raised certain common questions, particularly the ques- tion  as  to  the circumstances in  which  leave  should  be granted to a tenant under sub-s. (5) of s. 25B of the  Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 as amended by Act 18 of 1976.  So  far as  the respondent’s revisional application  was  concerned, the  only  contention urged on his behalf  and  which  found favour  with the High Court was that s. 14A(1) would not  be available  to  a  landlord  who  was  an  allottee  of   the Government  accommodation and whose allotment was liable  to be  cancelled  by virtue of his retirement from  service  or transfer outside Delhi.  The High Court pointed out that the provision  of  s.  14A(1) as  also  +lie  summary  procedure provided  under  s.  25B  of  the  Act  were   extraordinary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

provisions  intended  to  ensure  expeditious  eviction   of tenants who were in occupation of residential  accommodation owned by such allottees of Government accommodation who were required  to  vacate by virtue of their  ownership  of  such accommodation,  that these provisions were intended to  deal with  had cases and that no landlord should be permitted  to take  undue advantage thereof if he was required, to  vacate Government  accommodation  by virtue of  his  retirement  or transfer.  On the facts of the case, the High Court took the view  that  the  appellant was not entitled  to  invoke  the provision  of s. 14A(1) of the Act inasmuch as  even  before the  application  for  eviction was  filed  he  had  already retired  from  service  and was on that  account  liable  to vacate  the Government accommodation.  In this view  of  the matter,  the High Court allowed the revisional  application, set  aside  the Rent Controller’s order  and  dismissed  the application  for eviction filed by  the  appellant-landlord, leaving the parties to bear the respective costs throughout. It  is  this order passed by the High Court on  December  6, 1976  that  has been challenged  by  the  appellant-landlord before us. Mr. Saharya, Counsel for the appellant-landlord, raised  two or three contentions before us in support of the appeal.  In the first place be contended that s. 14A(1) merely speaks of "a  landlord,  who  being  a person  in  occupation  of  any residential premises allotted to him by ,Central  Government or  any local authority" and does not refer to a  Government servant  as such who is in occupation of a  residential  ac- commodation  allotted  to him by Central Government  or  any local  authority  and as such it covers the case of  a  Non- Govt.  servant,  as  for instance a  Law-Officer,  being  in occupation of Government accommodation and in whose case the concept of retirement from service of transfer outside Delhi would  be  inappropriate and irrelevant and,  therefore,  it cannot be said that cases of Government servants required to ,vacate Government accommodation on account of retirement or transfer  would  be  outside the  purview  of  the  section. Secondly,  he ,urged that the view taken by the  High  Court that Government servants 188 who  are required to vacate the Government accommodation  on account  of  retirement  or transfer would  be  outside  the purview of the section is unwarranted and unsustainable on a proper  construction of the section.  Thirdly, he  contended that  on  the  facts in the  present  case,  the  appellant- landlord though he retired from service on November 30, 1975 was   in  terms  called  upon  to  vacate   the   Government accommodation  not on account of his retirement but  on  the ground   that   owned  in  his  own   name   a   residential accommodation  in the Union Territory of Delhi and  that  he was  called  upon  to pay, and he did  pay  for  some  time, the   penal  licence  fee  for  retaining   the   Government accommodation beyond December 21, 1975 and as such it should have been held that s. 14A (1) was available to him and  had been  properly availed of by hint. He, urged that  the  Rent Controller was right in his view that the appellant-landlord had  satisfied  all the requirements and  conditions  of  S. 14A(1) and was entitled to an eviction order in his favour. On the other hand, Mr. Makhija, counsel for the  respondent- tenant,  supported the view taken by the High Court for  the reasons  indicated  by it in its judgment.  Relying  upon  a letter  dated September 9, 1976, addressed by the  Assistant Director  of  Estates  to the  Assistant  Director,  Cabinet Secretariat,  copy of which was forwarded to  the  appellant landlord (being Annexure ’D’ to appellant’s affidavit  filed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

in  support of the special leave petition appearing at  page 94 of Vol.  I of the record) he contended that the allotment of  Government  accommodation in favour  of  the  appellant- landlord  had  been cancelled with effect from  January  31, 1976  after  the expiry of the concessional  period  of  two months  admissible to him under the rules on his  retirement from  service on November 30, 1975 and, therefore, it  could not  be  said  that the appellant  was  required  to  vacate Government  accommodation  on  the  ground  of  his   owning residential  accommodation in the Union Territory  of  Delhi pursuant  to the order dated September 30, 1975 under  which his  allotment  would have been cancelled with  effect  from December  31,  1975.   He, therefore, urged  that  the  Rent Controller’s  view  had been rightly reversed  by  the  High Court. Since  the question raised before us primarily  pertains  to proper  construction  of the provision contained in  S.  14A (1),  it  would be desirable to set out the  said  provision which runs thus:               "14A Right to recover immediate possession  of               premises  to  accrue to  certain  persons.-(1)               Where  a  landlord  who,  being  a  person  in               occupation of any residential premises  allot-               ted  to him by the Central Government  or  any               local   authority  is  required,  by,  or   in               pursuance  of,  any general or  special  order               made  by  that  Government  or  authority,  to               vacate  such residential accommodation, or  in               dafault, 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               189               the  contrary,  a right to  recover  immediate               possession of any premises let out by him : " At  the ouset it may be stated that initially the  aforesaid provision  as also Chapter III A, comprising ss. 25A to  25C dealing  with  summary trial of  certain  applications  were introduced  in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by means  of Delhi  Rent  Control (Amendment Ordinance No.  24  of  1975, which  came into force on December 1,  1975.   Subsequently, the  said Ordinance was replaced by the Delhi  Rent  Control (Amendment’) Act 18 of 1976.  This Amendment Act was put  on the Statute Book on February 9, 1976, but by virtue of  sub- s. 1 it "shall be deemed to have come into force on December 1, 1975" i.e. the date of the enforcement of the  Ordinance. The  Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons  accompanying  the Amending Bill (No.  XII of 1976) clearly brings out the fact that  the  said amendment was necessitated  because  of  the Central  Government’s decision on September 9, 1975  that  a person  who owns a house in his place of work should  vacate the  Government accommodation allotted to him on  or  before December 31, 1975; in other words, a speedy and  expeditious remedy was provided to such a person to evict a tenant  from his  own  house  if he was  required  to  vacate  Government accommodation  by or pursuant to a general of special  order of the Government on the ground of his owning a  residential accommodation  in the Union Territory of Delhi.  The  object of s. 14A is thus to confer a right on certain landlords  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

recover "immediate possession of the premises" belonging  to them  and which are in possession of their tenants  provided they  are  required to vacate  Government  accommodation  in their occupation by a general or special order.  On a  plain reading  of  the section it will appear clear  that  such  a right  is  "to accrue" to a landlord on his  satisfying  the following  conditions  :  (a) such a  landlord  must  be  in occupation of a residential accommodation allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority; and (b)  such a   landlord  must  have  been  required  to   vacate   such residential  accommodation or. in default to  incur  certain obligations  by  any general or special order made  by  that Government  or authority 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.   It  is  also clear that, to  such  a  landlord  who satisfies the, aforesaid conditions, the right to evict  his tenant accrues "on or from the date of such order’  (meaning the  general  of special order by which he  is  required  to vacate  or in default he incurs certain  obligations).   The crucial  words are "on or from the date of such order"  with the result that the cause of action accrues to the land lord on  the date when he is served with the general  or  special order  requiring him to vacate or incur obligations,  though the  speedy  remedy to secure possession on  that  cause  of action could be said to have been made available to him only with the coming into force of the Ordinance No. 24 of  1975. It is in the light of these provisions that we will have  to consider  whether  on  the facts of  the  instant  case  the appellant landlord was entitled to invoke s. 14A of the  Act or not. Mr. Makhija appearing for the respondent-tenant, urged  that on a plain reading of s. 14A(1) it would be clear that  only if   the   landlord  was  required  to   vacate   Government accommodation "on the 190 ground  that  he  owns in the Union  Territory  of  Delhi  a residential accommodation", he would be entitled to eject  a tenant  and  recover immediate possession  of  the  premises belonging  to him which are in the occupation of the  tenant but  if such a landlord who is in occupation  of  Government accommodation  is liable to vacate Government  accommodation either  on  account of his retirement or transfer,  both  of which  might have taken place before he has sought  eviction of the tenant, such a case would be beyond the purview of S. 14A(1) of the Act, for, according lo him, reading s.  14A(1) and  ss.  25A to 25C alongwith Government’s  decision  dated September  9, 1975, which necessitated the insertion of  the provisions  in the enactment, it would be clear  that  these provisions  were not intended to be used by a  landlord  who has  either retired from service or is  transferred  outside Delhi before December 1, 1975 and must vacate the Government accommodation  on that account.  He pointed out that in  the instant case the appellant-landlord had retired on  November 30,  1975  long  prior  to the  coming  into  force  of  the Ordinance  No. 24 of 1975 and as such he had to  vacate  the Government  accommodation on account of his retirement.   He further  pointed out that even the application for  eviction had beenfiled  by the appellant against the respondent  on December 19, 1975long   after   he   had   retired   from Government service and had incurredthe  obligation   to vacate  the  Government  accommodation on  account  of  such retirement.   He also pointed out that if the  letter  dated September  9,  1976,  being  Annexure  ’D’  to   appellant’s affidavit  filed  in support of the special  leave  petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

(appearing  at page 94 of Vol. 1), is seen, it  will  appear clear  that  the  allotment of Government  premises  to  the appellant  had been cancelled with effect from  January  31, 1976  after  allowing  confessional  period  of  two  months admissible  to  him under the rules on his  retirement  from Government  service  on November 30, 1975.   He,  therefore, urged  that  s.  14A(1) would not be  available  to  such  a landlord. There appears to be some force in the view taken by the High Court  that the provision of S. 14A(1) was not intended  for Government servants who have retired from Government service or who have been transferred outside Delhi and the provision substantially was intended for the benefit of such landlords who continue in Government service in the Union Territory of Delhi   and   who   are  required   to   vacate   Government accommodation  in  their occupation or in default  to  incur certain  obligations on account of their owning  residential accommodations  in their own names or in the names of  their wives  or  dependent  children, but  having  regard  to  the peculiar  facts  which  obtain- in the instant  case  it  is unnecessary for us to go into such larger question.  On  the facts  obtaining  here we are clearly of the view  that  the appellant  landlord is entitled to invoke the provisions  of S. 14A(1) notwithstanding the fact that be bad retired  from service  with effect from November 30, 1975.  In  the  first place,  it  cannot  he disputed that be  satisfies  all  the requirements of S. 14A(1) in the sense that be is a landlord who is in occupation of a residential accommodation allotted to  him by the Central Government and that long  before  his retirement  on November 30, 1975, he was, by  general  order dated September 30, 1975, issued by the Government, required to vacate that accommodation on or before December 31,  1975 or in default to incur an obligation by way 191 payment of penal licence fee on the ground that he is owning a  residential  accommodation in his own name in  the  Union Territory  of Delhi.  It is true that the provisions  of  s. 14A(1) and the speedy remedy available under s. 25B came  to be  inserted in the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 with  effect from  December 1; 1975 and naturally, therefore, he made  an application  for  eviction  on December 19.  1975,  but,  as pointed  out  earlier,  to  a  landlord  who  satisfies  the requirements of s. 14A(1) the cause, of action arises or the right  to evict his tenant accrues ’on or from the  date  of the  order’  that  nay  be served upon  him  whereby  he  is required  to  vacate  the  Government  accommodation  or  in default  to incur the liability to pay higher penal  licence fee  on the ground that he owns a residential  accommodation in  jusown  name in the Union Territory of  Delhi.   In  the instant  case, admittedly, pursuant to Central  Government’s decision  taken  in  that behalf on  September  9,  1975,  a general  order,  requiring  him  to  vacate  the  Government accommodation  or in default to incur obligation of  payment of penal licence fee on the ground that he owns  residential accommodation  in  his own name in the  Union  Territory  of Delhi,  was served upon the appellant-landlord on  September 30,  1975, which was much before his retirement, which  took place  on November 30, 1975.  In other words when the  cause of action arose or the right to evict his tenant accrued  to him  the appellant-landlord was very much in service.   This is  not  a case where the right to evict has  accrued  to  a Government servant landlord simultaneously with or after his retirement.   It  is thus clear that upon  service  of  such general order dated September 30, 1975, upon the  appellant- landlord,  a right accrued to him under s. 14A of  the  Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

though,  as  said earlier, the  speedy  remedy  contemplated under s. 25B became available to him after the Ordinance No. 24  of  1975 came into force.  Apart from  service  of  this general order, it was not disputed before us that by  letter dated  January 14, 1976 enhanced licence fee at  the  market rate,  namely, at the rate of Rs. 520/per month in place  of Rs.  64/-  per month, which was payable  by  the  appellant- landlord  to  the  Government upto December  31,  1975,  was actually  demanded  by the Government  from  the  appellant- landlord  and the appellant-landlord has not  only  incurred this obligation but has fulfilled this obligation for a  few months  by  paying the licence fee at  the  enhanced  market rate.   The letter dated September 9, 1976, on which  strong reliance  was  placed by Mr. Makhija, contains  rather  con- tradictory averments.  It is true that in this letter it has been   stated   that  the  allotment   of   the   Government accommodation  in favour of the appellant-landlord shall  be deemed  to have been cancelled with effect from January  31, 1976, that is to say, after allowing the concessional period of  two months admissible to him under the rules  after  his retirement from Government service on November 30, 1975, but by the same letter the appellant-landlord has been  informed that  he is liable to pay enhanced market licence fee  "with effect  from January 1, 1976 being a house-owner." in  other words, even by this letter dated September 9, 1976  enhanced market  licence fee is claimed from the  appellant  landlord with effect from January 1, 1976, which could only be on the basis  that he was called upon to vacate the premises on  or before December 31, 1975 pursuant to the general order dated September  30,  1975  which was served  upon  him.   It  was faintly argued by Mr. 192 Makhija that the demand for enhanced licence fee with effect front January 1, 1976 made by the Government by this  letter must  be by mistake because in the main body of the,  letter it  has  been recited that the allotment of  the  Government premises  in favour of the appellant is deemed to have  been cancelled  with  effect from January 31, 1976.   It  is  not possible  to  accept this contention of Mr. Makhija  and  it appears  to us that the reference to deemed cancellation  of the allotment of the appellant with effect from January  31, 1976  is a mistake in view of the Government’s  decision  of September  9,  1975 and the contents of  the  general  order dated  September  30, 1975.  In any case  the  letter  dated September  9, 1976 on which reliance has been placed by  Mi. Makhija is self-contradictory and can be of no avail to show that  the appellant was required to vacate the  premises  on account  of  retirement  and not, on ground  of  his  owning residential  accommodation in the Union Territory of  Delhi, especially, in view of the general order dated September 30, 1975 that was served upon the appellant.-landlord. Having regard to the above discussion we are clearly of  the view that the appellant-landlord was entitled to invoke  the provision of s. 14A right.  We accordingly allow the  appeal and  set  aside the order            of the High  Court  and restore  that of the Rent Controller.  In the  circumstances of the case there will be no order as to the costs. R. Appeal allowed. 193