Raes Khan vs Siri Chand
1997 Latest Caselaw 540 Del

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J.

(1) The respondent, Siri Chand retired as Mason from the Central Public Department (CPWD) on 31st January, 1993. He owned House No. 454/B, Kalkaji, New Delhi, which was given on rent to this petitioner on 1st November, 1987 on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . After retirement, the respondent herein filed a petition of eviction against the petitioner under Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) as a classified landlord. Leave to contest was granted to this petitioner. He contested the eviction petition. Parties led evidence. Vide the impugned order the learned Additional Rent Controller passed the eviction order in favour of the respondent.

(2) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on the grounds that the petition under Section 14-C of the Act having not been filed one year before retirement of the respondent hence was not maintainable. Secondly, the respondent had entered into an agreement with the petitioner which entitled the petitioner to become owner of the superstructure on respondent failing to refund the amount paid and spent by the petitioner. Since the respondent failed to repay the amount as per agreement hence the petition for eviction stood debarred by virtue of that agreement. Finally the petition for eviction was an abuse of the due process of law.

(3) To appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner, let us first examine what Section 14-C of the Act says. Section 14-C of the Act gives right to recover immediate possession of premises to Central Government Employee on his fulfillling certain conditions. Those conditions are, (i) premises was let out by him; (ii) the same is now required by him for his own residence; (iii) he must have been an employee of the Central Government or Delhi Administration; and (iv) he stood retired and finally the petition is filed within one year from the date of his retirement or within one year from the date of commencement of the Act. Such an employee has an option to seek eviction prior to the date of his retirement provided he has a period of less than one year proceeding the date of his retirement. Now to understand as to whether the respondent fulfillled the essential ingredients of Section 14-C of the Act, let us examine in quick succession the facts of this case.

(4) Admittedly respondent was working as Mason in the Cpwd of Central Government. He stood retired w.e.f. 31st January, 1993. This fact was proved vide Exhibit Public Witness Public Witness 2/1 i.e. letter issued by the Department to the Pay & Accounts Officer of the respondent intimating that the respondent stood retired from the Department on 31st January, 1993. Thus, so far as the condition that landlord must be Central Government employee stood proved and also that he retired on 31st January, 1993. It was also admitted that he let out the premises in question to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 900.00 . He after retirement required bonafide for his living and for the living of his family members dependent upon him for residence.

(5) The only point of controversy raised by Mr. Rajiv Garg, Counsel for the petitioner that petition having been filed after retirement was barred by the provisions of Section 14-C(2). If respondent's need was bonafide he ought to have filed the petition one year preceding the date of his retirement. Clause (1) of Section 14-C of the Act, has to be read by Clause (2). Clause (2) has over riding effect on Clause (1) of Section 14-C. I am afraid this argument of the petitioner if accepted would make Clause (1) of Section 14-C redundant. Legislature did not insert the provision of Clause (1) without any relevance. If it was to be governed by Clause (2), there was no justification to say under Clause (1) of Section 14-C that a retired landlord could seek recovery of his premises within one year from the date of his retirement. Thus it would not be correct on the part of the petitioner to say that the eviction by such classified landlord could only be sought one year preceding the date of his retirement and not after retirement. This Court while interpreting the scope of Section 14-C of the Act observed that this section would apply to a landlord who retired from the Central Government or Delhi Administration. The only condition is that petition must be presented within one year of his retirement which in this case the landlord did. Hence on this count, I find no merits in the submissions of the petitioner