M/S. Continental Profiles Ltd. vs Mr. Gopal Bali
2001 Latest Caselaw 619 Del

ORDER

Vikramajit Sen, J.

Caveat No. 32/2001.

1. Since the Caveator is represented through counsel caveat stands disposed off.

SAO 15/2001.

2. The question which has been raised in this Second Appeal is whether a company, which had rented and relinquished premises prior to the filing of the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could nonetheless be evicted on the ground, namely, of having acquired vacant possession of A-40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller, as well as the Rent Control Tribunal, has found against the Tenant.

3. Mr. Sudhir K. Luthra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant, firstly contended that this ground ought not to have been considered for the reason that the concerned premises, i.e. A-40, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi had been brought into perspective and to the consideration of the Courts by means of a belated amendment to the petition. These premises were not available to the Tenant at the time when the eviction petition was filed. However, in my view, once the amendment was permitted, the question of delay and laches fades into the shadows, especially since this very aspect was earlier assailed up to the High Court. Furthermore in Smt. Mohini Badhwar v. Raghunandan Saran, 1989 Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 262, it was held that "it was sufficient for the purpose of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act that some time prior to the filing of the eviction petition the appellant had obtained possession of the house."

4. Reliance was also placed on the case of Usha Sales Ltd. v. Aruna Gupta, 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 763. In that case the terms of the lease explicity stated that the demised premises were to be used by a named Officer of the tenant company. In the present case the decision of who was to occupy the premises was specifically granted to the tenant Company. In these circumstances the arguments would lose significance since the Company/Tenant had the right to permit the user to any person it desired.

5. The rationale and wisdom of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act is evident. The Delhi Rent Control Act was introduced, as was rent control legislation in various parts of the world, because it was recognised that landlords and tenants could not enter into a fair bargain because of the differences in their economic strength. In order to save the tenants from the hardship of evictions, a general protection to them was granted by the Act. Thereafter exceptions thereto were carved out. In these circumstances, if a tenant had the necessary economic and financial strength to take more than one premises on rent, it was found unnecessary to extend any protection towards them. If, therefore, a company acquires a number of premises even for the use of their numerous employees, such companies would not require any statutory protection. This is the consistent view of the Courts in respect of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.

6. Reference is also required to be made to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Indian Cable co. Ltd. v. Shri Prem Chandra Sharma, . My attention has been drawn to a decision of a single judge of this Court in Gujarat State Fertilizers v. S.M. Aggarwal & Anr., 1999 Rajdhani law Reporter 249. In that case despite a covenant in the lease deed that the premises would be used only by the Company's Sales Engineer, eviction orders under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act were upheld.

7. I see no question of general importance which would require or justify this Court for entertaining this second Appeal.

8. Dismissed.