TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Posts and Telegraphs, Audit and Accounts Department of the Government of India, and in January 1975 he was sent on deputation to the Union Public Service Commission. He retired on May 1, 1978. During the course of his service, in October, 1972, the Respondent was allotted Government residential accommodation at Timarpur, Delhi, by the Directorate of Estates, Government of India. The Respondent occupied the said accommodation from November, 1, 1972. By a general order issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing in the form of an office memorandum, namely, O.M. No. 12031 (1)/74-Pol. II dated September 9, 1975, and subsequently clarified by another order, namely O.M. No. 12031 (1)/74-Pol. II dated December 12, 1975, the Government of India directed that all Government servants who had their own dwelling houses at the place of posting within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality should vacate the Government accommodation allotted to them within three months from October 1, 1975, or in default to pay market rent in respect thereof. Consequently the Respondent was required to vacate the Government accommodation allotted to him by December 31, 1975, or to pay the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Delhi a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Act. The said revision petition was dismissed on November 24, 1981. It is against this judgment and order of the Delhi High Court that the present Appeal by Special Leave has been filed by the Appellant. 4. The first contention raised on behalf of the Appellant at the hearing of this Appeal was that the Respondent was not entitled to rely upon the said special order dated December 24, 1975, inasmuch as it was signed on September 25, 1976, and the fact that it was signed nine months later than the date it bears clearly showed that the Respondent had manoeuvred to obtain this order. In our opinion, the said special order dated December 24, 1975, is irrelevant inasmuch as the foundation of the Respondent's said eviction application was not the said special order but the said general order dated September 9, 1975, as clarified by the said order dated December 12,1975. We may also mention here that the Government policy as embodied in the said general order and its clarification has been modified from time to time. We are, however, not concerned in this Appeal with any of the subsequent modification of the said policy. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied in Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order. x x x 7. The right of a landlord to recover possession on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act is thus circumscribed by three restrictions : (1) the landlord or the person for whose benefit the premises are held should not have other reasonably suitable residential accommodation; (2) if the premises of which the landlord desires to recover possession have been acquired by him by transfer, no application for the recovery of such premises can be filed unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition of such premises; and (3) if the landlord obtains an order for the recovery of possession of the premises, he is not entitled to obtain possession of such premises before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order or, in other words, the tenant is statutorily given a period of six months to vacate the premises. 8. Section 35 of the Act provides for appointment of Controllers and Additional Controlle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him : Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as confer- ring a right on a landlord owning, in the Union territory of Delhi, two or more dwelling houses, whether in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child to recover the possession of more than one dwelling house and it shall be lawful for such landlord to indicate the dwelling house, possession of which he intends to recover. 10. Chapter IIIA is entitled 'Summary Trial of Certain Applications'. It consists of three sections, namely, Sections 25A, 25B and 25C. Section 25A provides that the provisions of Chapter IIIA or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Section 25B prescribes as its marginal heading shows a 'special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement'. Under Section 25B every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises, on the ground speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child in the Union territory of Delhi. (2) In the case of a landlord who, being a person of the category specified in Sub-section (1), has obtained, on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14A, an order for the eviction of a tenant from any premises, the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 14 shall have effect as if for the words six months , occurring therein, the words two months were substituted. 12. It is now well settled that though the Statement of objects and Reasons accompanying a legislative Bill cannot be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of a statute, it is permissible to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill for the purpose of understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy. It will, therefore, be convenient to reproduce at this stage the statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying Bill No. XII of 1976 (Gazette of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... away and the only remedy left to him against an order of eviction passed by the Controller under Section 25B is to approach the High Court in revision. Thus, the object underlying Section 14A is that a person who is compelled to vacate residential accommodation allotted to him on the ground that he owns other residential premises in the Union territory of Delhi either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child should not be left without a roof over his head or should not be made to incur heavy financial obligation in case he wants to continue to reside in the accommodation allotted to him by paying market rent in respect thereof to the Central Government or the local authority, as the case may be. 14. Turning now to the merits of the present Appeal, it is not disputed that the premises let to the Appellant and the premises belonging to the Respondent which the Respondent occupied after giving up the Government accommodation allotted to him are separate premises and that each constitutes a dwelling house under the proviso to Section 14A(1). It is also not disputed that the Central Government issued the said general order dated September 9, 1975, and subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the nature specified in Section 14A(1) the landlord may vacate accommodation allotted to him and find accommodation for himself elsewhere, either by renting premises or in a hostel, hotel lodging house, boarding house or with a relative. He is not thereby debarred from filing an application under Section 14A(1). 16. Does the same position, however, prevail when on the passing of such general or special order the landlord vacates the accommodation allotted to him and moves into other premises owned by him either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child ? The consideration of this question brings us to the second ground of challenge to the maintainability of the Respondent's said eviction application. This is a more formidable challenge and in our opinion, it must succeed. It was urged by Mr. R.K. Jain on behalf of the Respondent that there was no such restriction provided in Section 14A(1). We are unable to accept this submission. The object underlying the Act and the subsequent enactment of Section 14A would be defeated, if this contention were to be accepted. The Act, like other Rent Acts, has been passed to secure tenants in their accommodation at a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 14A does not contain a condition that a person who has or had to vacate the accommodation allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority by reason of a general or special order mentioned in Section 14A(1) has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation as Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) does. Under Section 14A(1) such allottee should have no other dwelling house which he owns either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child for him to move into. If such dwelling house is not adequate or suitable for his residence, he must proceed under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14A(1). That this is the only remedy open to him is clear from the provisions of Section 25C. As we have seen, a landlord who desires to recover possession of premises on the ground specified in the said Clause (e), which premises have been acquired by him by transfer, he cannot under Clause (6) of Section 14 file an application under the said Clause (e) for a period of five years from date of the acquisition of those premises by him. Further, such an applicant if he succeeds in getting an order of eviction is not entitled to obtain possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
