http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHAFAIT ALl THROUGH SUPREME COURTLEGAL AID COMMITEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIVA MAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/07/1987

BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  214            1987 SCR  (3) 689  1987 SCC  (3) 728        1987 SCALE  (2)186  CITATOR INFO :  R          1988 SC 214  (1)

ACT:      Delhi  Rent Control Act, 1958--ss. 14(1)(e),  14A,  25A, 25B  and 25C--Whether special provisions--ss.  14(1)(e)  and 14A--Whether any difference between them either on principle or  in law--Proceedings under ss. 14(1)(e) and  14A--Whether Slum   Areas   (Improvement   and   Clearance)   Act,   1956 applicable--Whether permission of Competent Authority  under ss. 19(1)(a) necessary before instituting suit for eviction.

HEADNOTE:     The  Appellant  was  ordered  to  be  evicted  under  s. 14(1)(e)  of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the  ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord. Dismissing the Appeal, to this Court,     HELD:  1. Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C  of  the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, are special provisions so  far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in view of  the non-obstante clause in the section these  provisions over-ride  the existing law so far as the new  procedure  is concerned. Therefore, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clear- ance) Act, 1956, would have no application in cases  covered by  ss. 14A and 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act especially in  view of  the provisions which were added by the Amending  Act  of 1976. [690D-F]     2. There is no difference either on principle or in  law between  s.  14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent  Act  even  though these  two  provisions relate to eviction of  tenants  under different situations. [690F]      3.  In  view of the procedure in Chapter III-A  of  the Rent  Act,  the  Slum Act is rendered  inapplicable  to  the extent  of  inconsistency and it is not  necessary  for  the landlord  to  obtain permission of the  Competent  Authority under s. 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a  suit for  eviction  and coming within s. 14(1)(e) or 14A  of  the Rent Act. [690G-H]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2047  of

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

1982. 690     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 16.3.  1982  of  the Delhi High Court in Civil Rev. No. 147 of 1982. W.A. Quadri and Kailash Mehta for the Appellant. M.C. Dhingra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SABYASACHI  MUKHARJI,  J. This is an appeal  by  special leave  against the judgment and order dated the 16th  March, 1982 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1982  directing eviction of the premises in  question  under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of  bonafide requirement of the landlord. The special  leave was  sought for and obtained from this Court on  the  ground that  Civil  Appeal No. 1051/81 and special  leave  petition (civil)  No. 2290/82 were pending at that time.  It  appears that  the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court  in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, [1984] 2 S.C.R.  614 where this Court held that Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions  so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further  in view of the non-obstante clause in the section these  provi- sions override the existing law so far as the new  procedure is  concerned.  In  that view of the matter we  are  of  the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in cases covered by  Sections 14A and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending  Act of 1976.     This  Court held that there is no difference  either  on principle or in law between section 14(1)(e) and 14A of  the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations.     This Court further held that in view of the procedure in Chapter  IIIA  of  the Rent Act, the Slum  Act  is  rendered inapplicable  to the extent of inconsistency and it is  not, therefore,  necessary for the landlord to obtain  permission of  the  Competent Authority under Section 19(1)(a)  of  the Slum  Act before instituting a suit for eviction and  coming within  Section  14(1)(e)  or 14A of the Rent  Act.  In  the premises the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 691     The  decree  for eviction shall not be  executed  before 30.11.87 provided the appellant files an undertaking in  the usual form within four weeks from today. A.P.J.                                                Appeal dismissed. 692