TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i High Court in Civil Revision No.754 of 2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 27th May, 2002 by which the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application of the appellant for leave to defend in the eviction proceeding filed against her by the respondent under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter, the said Act ). 2. The material facts of the case are that the respondent, a widow, filed a petition under Section 14-D of the said Act to recover immediate possession of the premises of which the appellant is a tenant in one room, kitchen, bathroom, latrine and courtyard on the first floor of property No.4899-A Gali Maulvi Abdul Rahim, Bara H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviction petition on merits. The Delhi High Court was pleased to hold as follows:- The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 18th March, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The petitioner was non-suited on the ground that the suit premises were not let out by her husband or by her but were in fact let out by the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner. The admitted position is that the suit premises were purchased by the petitioner some time in 1961. She, unfortunately, became a widow in 1980. It has been held by various judgments of this Court such as Mr. B.M. Chanana Vs. Union of India and others, 1990 (18) DRJ 55; Mrs. Sarla Luthra Vs. M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1993 (25) DRJ 52 and Bhupind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall he open to her to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one of the premises chosen by her. 8. In Nathi Devi (supra) this Court noticed the difference of opinion between the decision of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87, and the decision of this Court in Kanta Goel vs. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 9. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Nathi Devi (supra), upholding the reasoning given by this Court in Surjit Singh Kalra (supra) held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Delhi High Court, extracted above, giving a different interpretation of Section 14-D was not challenged by the appellant herein. But the High Court judgment on interpretation of Section 14-D is clearly erroneous in view of the subsequent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Nathi Devi (supra). The Constitution Bench decision in Nathi Devi (supra), in view of the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution is binding on all subordinate Courts and Delhi High Court and the rights of the parties in a pending proceeding under Section 14-D of the said Act must be governed by the law laid down in Nathi Devi (supra). 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued another point, namely, that there is no relationshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
