TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in the tenancy of respondent No. 1 on a monthly rent of ₹ 60. The appellant was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent, Military Farm, Meerut Cantonment. In that capacity he was allotted Government quarter No. 47 belonging to the Union of India. On 8th November, 1979 he was given a notice to vacate the Government quarter by the Deputy Assistant Director intimating that since the appellant had his own house at Meerut Cantonment, he should vacate the government quarter allotted to him by the order dated 8th August, 1979. In view of that the appellant moved an application under section 24-C of the said Act. It is the case of the appellant that he owns no other house except the one involved in the present appeal. Section 24-B(1) of the said Act which gives the right to move under section 24-C of the said Act provides as follows: S.24-B(1) Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential public building is required, by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Government or other authority concerned, to vacate such building, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the same city, municipali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial accommodation vacated from the tenant. The Delegated Authority observed as fol- lows: It is admitted by both the parties that the entire house is one and in its first floor tenant is living and the ground floor is in possession of the landlord. Both the portions of the house are parts of one house and there- fore there is no question of accepting it as a separate residential unit particularly when the tenant-objector has himself in his own affidavit and objections stated that the bath-room and the latrine is on the ground floor i.e it is situated in the portion of the landlord. It may be stated that respondent-tenant had filed an affidavit showing his need. The Delegated Authority who was the Addl. District Magistrate held by his order dated 17th August, 1981 that the application of the appellant should be allowed and there should be an order for eviction. There was an appeal from the said order before the Additional District Judge. He, in his order, set out the facts referred to hereinbefore. He also referred to a report dated 11th December, 1979 by the Inspector who supported the appellant's case. Before the appellate authority two points were urged namely, that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a result of the issuance of the said notification Chapter IV-A, became applicable to the building in question, according to the High Court. It was, however, urged before the High Court on behalf of the respondent that Chapter IV-A had been applied to the Cantonment areas on a subsequent date, i.e. 27th February, 1982, the Act being not applicable to the accommodation in question in November, 1979 when the application under section 24-B of the Act was filed by the respondent and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. It was, however, conceded by respondent that the revision order had been passed by the Additional District Judge on 27th April, 1983. It was therefore submitted that the proper course in the circumstances of the instant case would have been to send back the case for fresh decision. Reliance had been placed by the appellant on the decision in the case of Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi etc. v. Mamanchand Ratilal/Igarwal and Ors., [1980] 3 SCR 224. However, as the learned judge felt that on the second point the respondent was entitled to succeed, he did not decide this point taken in the writ petition by the respondent. The second point urged before the learned judge was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as added by the U.P. Act. No. 28 of 1976 with effect from 1976. Section 24A, section 24-B and section 24-C are contained in the said chapter. The said Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976 did not state whether the said chapter would be applicable to buildings constructed and situated within the cantonment limit. The first question posed before the High Court but not answered by it was whether in view of the answer given to the second question, the provisions of those sections would be applicable to the building in question. By notification issued in the exercise of section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act. 1957, the Central Government had extended to all the Cantonments in Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the Act in question, as in force on the date of that notification, in the State of U.P. The said notifica- tion being Notification No. S.R.O. 259 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the said Act and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence. The said Notification extended to all the Cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh the Act (U.P. Act. No. 13 of 1972), as in force on the date of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24-B gave substantive rights to the appellant and section 24-C was the procedure for enforcing those substantive rights. Therefore, these were not only procedural rights. Therefore, there was no question of retrospective operation to take away vested fight. We are, however, of the opinion that it would be an exercise in futility if the application is dismissed on this ground it can be fried again and in view of the subsequent legislation as noted hereinbefore it was bound to succeed on this point. In exercise of our discretionary power under article 136 of the Constitution it would not be proper to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the case on this ground. In the premises in view of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Jai Singh's case (supra) and reason mentioned hereinbefore this contention urged on behalf of the respondent must be rejected. The second question which is the substantial question in this appeal is, whether in view of the fact that respondent No. 3 was in occupation of the ground floor of premises No. 217-218 Machhli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. the first floor of which was in the tenancy of the appellant, the application under section 24-B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;building' in question in this case. Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to section 3(i) and he further drew our attention to section 12(4), section 16(1)(b), section 21(1), section 21(1-A) of the Act in aid of the submission that whenever the legislature intended to mean part of the building the legislature has said so expressly. Sarwan Singh Anr. v. Kasturi Lal, [1977] 2 SCR 421 was dealing with the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. Dealing with section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act, this Court observed that section 14A provided that where the landlord who, being in occupation of residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government, was required to vacate such residential accommodation on the ground that he owns residential accommodation within the Union Territory, there shall accrue to such a landlord notwithstanding any- thing contained in any other law for the time being in force fight to recover immediately possession of the premises. In view of the facts in the case involved before us, where the landlord, the appellant was in possession of a par1 of the building in question which could be considered in certain circumstances to be a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was with the effect that fight of eviction under section 14A of the Delhi Act was confined only to one dwelling house and the landlord has no right to recover possession of more than one dwelling house in exercise of section 14A of the Delhi Act. Reference has to be made to another decision under the Delhi Rent Control Act by a learned single judge of the Delhi High Court in S.S. Makhij- ani v. V.K. dotwani, 1977 Rajdhani Law Reporter 207. There the learned judge referred to another decision and expressed concurrence with the said decision where it was held that in order to determine whether two pans of a building consist of one or more dwelling houses, the tests to be applied were thus: (1)consider the building and see whether it constitut- ed a whole house or a part of the house; (2)if one part was reasonably needed for convenient and comfortable occupation and enjoyment of the other part of the building then both the parts of the building constituted one dwelling house within the meaning of proviso to section 14A of Delhi Act. To arrive at this finding, the learned judge observed that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration were (a)the situation; (b)entrance; ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is a staircase in the front which leads to the first floor and one need not go to the ground floor. There are two latrines in ground floor. There is,; however, a common passage and in Order to come down to that passage, one has to use another staircase which is a common staircase. In this context the question is whether the premises in question could be separately used. In our opinion, the High Court in the facts of this case was not in error in holding that the two pans could be separately enjoyed. After 1962 the mother of the appellant resided in the portion in the occupation of the landlord now used separately and independently and the same is in occupation of the appellant and at that time when the mother of the appellant was alive the appellant used to occupy the said portion. In our opinion the conduct of the parties is relevant in considering whether parts or portions of a building could be a dwelling house. It may also be mentioned that after the death of the mother of the appellant the portion was separately let out and a tenant used to occupy the said portion separately. Here in the instant case, Shri Melhrotra, counsel for the appellant however, stressed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
