Fibre Bond (Sales) Vs. Chand Rani [1993] INSC 271 (7 May 1993)
Sahai, R.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Venkatachala N. (J)
CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 249
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.Validity of the order passed by the Delhi High Court directing eviction of the petitioner on an application filed under Section 14-D by the landlady, a widow, has been challenged in this Court. It is claimed that leave to defend having been granted in an earlier petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) the Rent Control Officer was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application. We do not find any merit in the submission as the landlord under Section 14-D is a classified landlord with special rights.
It was then urged that since an application under Section 14(1)(e) was pending the second application for the same purpose could not have been entertained. The submission is again devoid of any merit as the earlier application under Section 14(1)(e) was filed under unamended Act whereas the latter application was filed after a special right was conferred on the landlord.
2.It was vehemently argued that since the landlady and her son were coowners and joint lessees the provisions of Section 14-D were not applicable.
+ From the Judgment and Order dated February 8, 1993 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CR No. 859 of 1992 250 Reliance is placed on Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India'.
We do not propose to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the submission raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and leave the question open for decision as in our opinion on facts found it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is, however, granted four months time to vacate the premises subject to his filing usual undertaking within one month from today.
