Bond (Sales) Vs. Chand Rani  INSC 271 (7 May 1993)
R.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Venkatachala N. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 249
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.
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.
was vehemently argued that since the landlady and her son were coowners and
joint lessees the provisions of Section 14-D were not applicable.
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'.
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.