Jain Malleables Vs. Bharat Sahay
[1981] INSC 200 (8 December 1981)
VARADARAJAN, A. (J) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)
CITATION: 1982 AIR 71 1982 SCR (2) 53 1982
SCC (1) 149 1981 SCALE (3)1817
ACT:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, section 14A (1)
read with section 25B and Government of India Notifications dated 9-9- 1975 and
14-7-1977, scope of.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent-landlord filed a petition for
eviction of the appellant, under section 14A read with section 25B of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of requirement for personal occupation, in
view of the fact that he was forced to pay penal rent of Rs. 1,448 from his
Government accommodation as per Government of India notification dated 9-9-1975
and the special order dated 22- 1-1976 requiring him to vacate the Government
accommodation by 31-12-1975. After presentation of the eviction petition and
service of notice under section 25B of the Act, the appellant filed a petition
for grant of leave to defend the main petition and raised several objections in
the written statement. One such objection was that in view of the later
circular of the Government dated 14-7-1977, the respondent was not required to
vacate the Government accommodation and, therefore, he was not entitled to
evict the appellants under the provisions of section 14A of the Delhi Rent
Control Act.
The said objection having been disallowed by
the Additional Rent Controller the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition
before the Delhi High Court, which met with the same fate.
Hence the appeal against that order by
special leave.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court ^
HELD: 1. The respondent landlord is entitled
to have recourse to section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for
evicting the appellants from the premises in question.
[68 A-B]
2. The second notification dated 14-7-1977 of
the Government, without taking away the obligation imposed by the first
notification dated 9-9-75 on Government employees owning houses in their own
names or in the name of any other member of their families, within the limits
of their place of posting, vacate the Government accommodation within three
months from 1st of October, 1975, has given an option to those employees to
continue to occupy the Government accommodation subject to the obligation
mentioned in the second notification, namely, that the house owning Government
employee will have to pay normal rent for the Government accommodation if the
income from his own house does not exceed Rs. 1,000 per mensem half the market
rent if the 54 income from his own house exceeds Rs. 1,000 per mensem but does
not exceed Rs. 2,000/- per mensem and full market rent if the income from his
house is above Rs. 2,000 per mensem with effect from 1-6-1977. [64 C-E]
3. In the present case, (i) even apart from
the first notification dated 9-9-1975 which is general in nature and has been
modified by the second notification dated 14-7-1977 there is the special order
dated 22-1-1976 which required the respondent to vacate the Government accommodation
by 31- 12-1975, failing which he is to pay market rent with effect from
1-1-1976: (ii) the market rent/licence fee which the respondent had to pay for
the Government accommodation on the date of institution of the Eviction
Petition was Rs. 1,448 per mensem and it had been increased to Rs. 1,543 per
mensem and further enhanced to Rs. 2,898 per mensem by the letter dated
17/18-7-1981 of the Assistant Director of Estates addressed to the respondent:
(iii) there is nothing on record to show that the obligation imposed upon
respondent by the first notification to vacate the Government accommodation
within three months from 1st of October, 1975 and by the special order dated
22-1-1976 by 31st December, 1975 has been withdrawn; (iv) the respondent has an
option to continue to occupy the Government accommodation subject to certain
obligations contained in the two notifications without vacating the Government
accommodation within a period of three months from 1st of October, 1975 and (v)
it is not open to the appellants to compel the respondent to exercise his
option and continue to occupy the Government accommodation in order that he may
continue to occupy the premises in question as the tenant.
[64 E-H, 65 A-B] Busching Schmitz Private
Ltd. v. P.T. Menghani and Anr., [1977] 3 S.C.R. 312 referred to.
K.D. Singh v. Shri Hari Babu Kanwal, [1980] 1
RCR 90, overruled.
J.L. Paul v. Ranjit Singh, [1980] 2 SCR 527,
approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1472 of 1980.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and
order dated the 1st February, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision
Petition No. 122 of 1980.
Madan Bhatia, Rajiv Behl and Sushil Kumar for
the Appellant.
L.M. Singhvi, L.R. Gupta M.V. Goswami and
L.K. Pandey for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VARADARAJAN J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the one word
order dated 1.2.1980 of the learned Single Judge of the 55 Delhi High Court
dismissing Civil Revision Petition No. 122 of 1980 in limine. The tenants who
were respondents in the Rent Control Eviction Petition, filed the Civil
Revision Petition against the Rent Controller's order dated 30.10.1979,
declining to permit them to raise certain grounds of defence while granting
leave to defend the eviction petition on certain other grounds. Special leave
to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court has
been granted by this Court only on the question whether s. 14A of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 is applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of
the case "in view of the later Circular of 1977". The "later
Circular of 1977" mentioned in the special leave granted by this Court on
5.8.1980 is the Office Memorandum dated 14.7.1977 of the Joint Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, Directorate of Estates,
hereinafter referred to as the "second notification". The same Joint
Secretary to the Government of India in the same Ministry had issued the
earlier Memorandum dated 9.9.1975, hereinafter referred to as the "first
notification".
The respondent-landlord filed the Petition
for eviction of the appellants under s. 14A read with s. 25B of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". In the
Eviction Petition the respondent had alleged that by virtue of his being a
Government servant he has been allotted residential accommodation at No. 83
Lodhi Estate, New Delhi since November 1971. Under the first notification he is
required to vacate the Government accommodation and shift to his own house No.
11-B Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, which is now in the occupation of the
appellants, and if he failed to do so he is to incur the obligation of paying
rent/licence fee of Rs 1,448 per mensem on the ground that he owns a residential
building in the Union Territory of Delhi and still continues to occupy
Government accommodation. The appellants have not vacated the premises occupied
by them in spite of several assurances given by them since February 1976. The
respondent is paying a penal rent of Rs. 1,448 per mensem for the Government
accommodation because he had not vacated that accommodation provided to him by
the Government as a Government servant.
After presentation of the Eviction Petition
and service of notice under s. 25B of the Act, the appellants filed a Petition
for grant of leave to defend the main Petition. One of the objections
disallowed, with which we are concerned in this appeal, is that in view of the
second notification the respondent is not required to vacate the 56 Government
accommodation now available to him and that he is, therefore, not entitled to
evict the appellants under the provisions of s. 14A of the Act. The Civil
Revision Petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Additional
Rent Controller has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court as mentioned above. The appellants have, therefore, filed this appeal by
special leave against that order.
We are concerned in this appeal with s. 14A
(1) of the Act, which reads thus:
"14A (1) Where landlord who, being a
person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central
Government or any local authority is required, by, or in pursuance of, any
general or special order made by that Government or authority, to vacate such
residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the
ground that he owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential
accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent
child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order to such landlord
notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law
for the time being in force in any contract (whether express 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 conferring 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.
... ... ...
There is no dispute that the respondent is
the owner of the premises in question, namely, 11-B Maharani Bagh, New Delhi,
now occupied by the appellants on a rent of Rs. 2,100 per mensem and that he is
at present in occupation of Government accommodation at No. 83 Lodhi Estate, New
Delhi and is obliged to pay 57 penal rent/licence fee of Rs. 1,448 per mensem.
The relevant portion of the first notification reads thus:
"That undersigned is directed to say
that the question of allotment of Government residential accommodation to officers
owing houses at or near the stations of their posting has been under
consideration of Government for some time past. It has now been decided, in
supersession of all previous orders on the subject, as follows:- (i) Those
Government servants, who build houses in future at the place of their posting,
within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality, whether with or
without Government assistance, or who become owners of houses in future-either
in their own names or in the names of any members of their families-shall be
required to vacate Government accommodation in their occupation from the date
their own houses are fit for occupation.
(ii) Those Government servants, who have
already built houses at the place of their posting within the limits of any
local or adjoining municipality, whether with or without Government assistance,
or who own houses either in their own names or in the names of any members of
their families-shall be required to vacate the Government accommodation
allotted to them, within three months from the 1st of October 1975. If they do
not vacate Government accommodation after that period, they would be charged
licence fee at market rates.
(iii)Hence onward, no Government
accommodation should be allotted to an officer owning a house at the place of
his posting within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality. A
certificate shall be obtained from a prospective allottee that he has no house
at the station of his posing within the limits of any local or adjoining
municipality-either in his own name or in name of any member of his family.
(iv) ... ... ...
58 (v) ... ... ...
2. ... ... ...
3. The Ministry of Home Affairs, etc. are
requested to bring the above decision of Government to the notice of all their
attached and subordinate offices, and ensure that the decision is implemented
in respect of different pools of Government residence under their control.
4. In so far as general pool accommodation is
concerned, the Ministry of Home Affairs, etc., are requested to bring this to
the notice of all Government Servants who are eligible for general pool
accommodation as well as those who have already been allotted accommodation
from the general pool, asking them by 15th October, 1975 to indicate whether
they have their own houses as covered by these orders. In case they have, a
declaration may be obtained from them in the prescribed proforma and forwarded
to the Directorate of Estate (Coordination I Section) by 15th November, 1975.
Other officers who do not own houses should also furnish a declaration to that
effect. All officials who have been allotted general pool accommodation may be
advised that it is their responsibility to inform the Directorate of Estates,
when they or any member of their families become owners of houses in future,
within one month from the date of becoming such owners.
All officers eligible for general pool
accommodation may also be warned that severe action will be taken against them
in case they furnish any incorrect information".
In addition to this general first
notification relating to Government accommodation in the occupation of
Government employees there is a special order dated 22.1.1976 of the Assistant
Director of Estates, New Delhi calling upon the respondent to vacate the
Government accommodation No. 83 Lodhi Estate allotted to him since 31.12.1975,
failing which he would be charged market rent with effect from 1.1.1976 at the
rate fixed by Government from time to time and informing him that a bill at the
market rate of licence fee for the said premises will follow.
59 In the affidavit filed in support of the
Petition for grant of leave to defend the main Eviction Petition the appellants
have stated that the respondent is occupying a huge, massive and palatial
bungalow in the Lodhi Estate, New Delhi built on an area of about two acres and
allotted to him by the Government and that whereas he is paying an alleged rent
of Rs. 1,448 per mensem for that accommodation, he is getting a rent of Rs.
2,100 per mensem for his premises occupied by the appellants and he is thereby
gaining a sum of Rs. 652 per mensem. The appellants have further stated in that
affidavit that there is a clear shift in the policy of the Government whereby
Government accommodation is made available to even those employees who happen
to have their own houses at Delhi and that Government have modified the
notification relied upon by the respondent whereby house owing officials have
become eligible for allotment of Government accommodation at the places of
their posting with effect from 1.6.1977.
The notification said to modify the first
notification is the second notification. The relevant portion of that
notification reads thus:
"The undersigned is directed to say that
the orders contained in this Ministry's office Memorandum No. 12031 (1)/74-Pol.
II, dated 9.9.1975, as modified from time to time have been reconsidered.
Government has decided that the restrictions on allotment of accommodation to
houses owning officers should be modified with effect from 1.6.1977, making
house owning officers eligible for Government accommodation as communicated in
this Ministry's Office Memorandum of even number dated the 29th June, 1977. It
has also been decided that allotment of such accommodation to a house owning
official will be on normal rent if the income from his own house does not
exceed Rs. 1,000 p.m. or half the market rent if the income exceeds Rs. 1,000
p.m. but does not exceed Rs. 2,000 p.m. and on full market rent if the income
is above Rs. 2,000 p.m. Rent will be recovered on the same basis w.e.f.
1.6.1977 also from those house owing officials who are retaining Government
accommodation on payment of market rents.
These decisions will apply equally whether
the house is owned by the officer or his/her wife/husband or by his/her
dependent children.
60 2. ... ... ...
3. Allotment of accommodation to house owning
officers who have already vacated Government accommodation.
Such officers will be considered for
allotment of accommodation in their turn on the basis of their priority date
under the allotment rules. No preference should be shown to them in the matter
of allotment in consideration of the fact that they were earlier in occupation
of Government accommodation and had vacated it in compliance with the earlier
orders to which the officers are normally entitled without restriction of any
locality or without any reference to the types of accommodation which the
officers were occupying previously. As usual, officers eligible for types V and
above should also be considered for allotment in the types next below on the
basis of their priority for such types. After accepting initial allotment, they
will be eligible for change in the normal manner in accordance with the
allotment rules.
4. ... ... ...
5. ... ... ...
6. In so for as the general pool is concerned
officers who have already vacated Government accommodation may submit fresh
applications for allotment of accommodation in the prescribed application form,
indicating the details of the houses owned by them or their spouses or dependent
children, alongwith documentary proof of the income they derive from the houses
they own. House owing officers, who are continuing in Government accommodation,
should also furnish suitable documentary proof of the income they get from
their private houses, to enable the Director of Estates to fix the licence fee
recoverable from them w.e.f. 1.6.1977".
Mr. Madan Bhatia, learned counsel for the
appellants, submitted that while under the first notification the respondent
was required to vacate the Government accommodation within three 61 months from
1.10.1975 on pain of being liable to pay licence fee at the market rate if he
failed to vacate within that time, Government employees like respondent have
become eligible for Government accommodation under the second notification and
are, therefore, not obliged to vacate the Government accommodation and that the
respondent is, therefore, not entitled to seek eviction of the appellants from
his premises under s. 14A of the Act though he may file a Petition for eviction
under s. 14 (1) (e) of the Act which is a general provision applicable to all
landlords who seek to evict their tenants on the ground that they require the
premises for their own bonafide occupation. Section 14 (1) (e) reads thus:
"14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller
in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an
application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the
recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds
only, namely :- (a) ... ... ... ...
(b) ... ... ... ...
(c) ... ... ... ...
(d) ... ... ... ...
(e) that the premises let for residential
purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence
for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the
owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and
that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential
accommodation:
Explanation-For the purposes of this clause,
"premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which
having been let for use as a residence are, without the con- 62 sent of the
landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;
... ... ... ..." In support of the
contention that in view of the second notification the respondent is not
entitled to have recourse to the provisions of s. 14A of the Act, Mr. Madan
Bhatia relied upon the decision of this Court in Busching Schmitz Private Ltd.
v. P.T. Menghani and Anr. where the Court has observed at page 323 thus:
"Supposing the landlord, after
exploiting the easy process of s. 14A, relets the premises for a higher rent;
the social goal boomerangs because the tenant is ejected and the landlord does
not occupy, as he would have been bound to do, if he had sought eviction for
bona fide occupation under s. 14 (1) (e). Section 19 obligates the landlord in
this behalf. In literal terms, that section does not apply to eviction obtained
under s. 14A. But the scheme of that section definitely contemplates a specific
representation by the petitioner-landlord to the Controller that because he has
been ordered to vacate the premises where he is residing therefore, he requires
immediate possession for his occupation.........Once we grasp this cardinal
point, the officer's application for eviction under s. 14A can be entertained
only on his averment that he, having been asked to vacate, must get into
possession of his own.......... The cause of action is not only the government
order to vacate, but his consequential urgency to recover his own
building." Mr. Madan Bhatia relied also on the decision of learned single
Judge of the Delhi High Court in K.D. Singh v. Shri Hari Babu Kanwal, where the
learned Judge has observed thus:
"At the time when this application was
brought in February 1977, the Circular of 9.9.1975 held the field.
Unfortunately, for the landlord this position
under- went change when the Central Government issued a revised Circular dated
14.7.1977 by which the orders contained in 63 the earlier circular dated
9.9.1975 were modified after reconsideration ............ A vital change thus
took place by the Circular of 14.7.1977, namely, that there is no direction to
a person who owns a house and who is in occupation of a residential premises
allotted to him by the Central Government to vacate such residential
accommodation.................. Once therefore, the revised Circular of
14.7.1977 has come, the very basis on which the Eviction Application under s.14
A of Act was brought has ceased to exist and cannot avail him ......... It must
be realised that s.14A was brought in only for a limited purpose to enable the
Government servants in getting immediate possession of their house when they
had been directed to vacate the Government accommodation. The special
legislation was made to serve special purpose in pursuance of the Circular of 9.9.1975.
Once that purpose has been modified and the Government has revised its decision
and there is no direction to vacate such residential accommodation, it is
impermissible in law to allow a Government servant to invoke s.14A and
frustrate the beneficial Act of the Rent Control legislation like the Delhi
Rent Control Act".
We do not agree with this view of the learned
Judge.
It is seen from paragraph 3 of the Order of
the Additional Rent Controller, which was sought to be revised by the High
Court, that the respondent is paying a rent of Rs. 1,448 per mensem for the
Government accommodation No. 83 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. In the reply affidavit
filed in the Special Leave Petition the respondent has stated that he is liable
to pay Rs. 1,543 per mensem for the Government accommodation as penal rent on
account of his failure to vacate the same. The respondent has produced in this
Court a communication addressed to him by the Assistant Director of Estates,
New Delhi saying that without prejudice to any other action which may be taken
in respect of the Government accommodation which has been allotted to him, his
liability will continue to increase to Rs. 2,898 per mensem and three times
that rate on the expiry of 15 days from the date of service of orders of eviction
under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 till he
vacates and restores the premises to the Central Public Works Department. These
facts and the liability of the 64 respondent to pay full market rent for the
Government accommodation with effect from 1.6.1977 and the second notification
in the light of his getting rental income exceeding Rs. 2,000 per mensem from
his own premises show that the respondent has to incur certain obligations on
his failure to vacate Government accommodation on the ground that he owns in
the Union territory of Delhi a residential accommodation either in his own name
or in the name of his wife or dependent child. We do not find anything in the
second notification taking away the obligation which has been imposed on the
respondent by the first notification to vacate the Government accommodation
within three months from the 1st of October 1975. We are of the opinion that
the second notification, without (taking away the obligation imposed by the
first notification on Government employees owning houses in their own names or
in the name of any other member of their families, within the limits of their
place of posting, to vacate the Government accommodation within three months
from the first of October 1975, has given an option to those employees to
continue to occupy the Government accommodation subject to the obligation
mentioned in the second notification, namely, that the house owning Government
employee will have to pay normal rent for the Government accommodation if the
income from his own house does not exceed Rs. 1,000 per mensem of half the
market rent if the income from his own house exceeds Rs. 1,000 per mensem but
does not exceed Rs. 2,000 per mensem and full market rent if the income from
his house is above Rs. 2,000 per mensem with effect from 1.6.1977. In the
present case the market rent/licence fee which the respondent had to pay for
the Government accommodation occupied by him on the date of institution of
Eviction Petition was Rs. 1,448 per mensem and it had been increased to Rs.
1,543 per mensem as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent in
the Special Leave Petition and it has been further enhanced to Rs. 2,898 per
mensem by the letter dated 17/18-7-1981 of the Assistant Director of Estates
addressed to the respondent and referred to above. The respondent has thus an
option to continue to occupy the Government accommodation subject to the said
obligation without vacating the Government accommodation within a period of
three months from the Ist of October, 1975. We are of the opinion that it is
not open to the appellants to compel the respondent to exercise his option and
continue to occupy the Government accommodation in order that they may continue
to occupy the premises in question as the tenants. Even apart from the first
notification which is general in nature and has been modified by the 65 second
notification as mentioned above, there is the special order dated 22.1.1976
which required the respondent to vacate the Government accommodation by
31.12.1975, failing which he is to pay market rent with effect from 1.1.1976 as
mentioned above. In these circumstances it is not possible for us to accept the
argument of Mr. Madan Bhatia that the respondent is not entitled to have
recourse to s. 14A of the Act for seeking eviction of the appellants from the
premises in question, having regard to first and second notifications and the
special order dated 22.1.1976. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the
respondent invited our attention to the decision of another learned Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court in J.L. Paul v. Ranjit Singh (supra) where we
find the following observations:
"The last objection of the petitioner is
that the notifications granting a right to the Government employee to seek
eviction under Section 14A of the Act have been withdrawn, that this defence
raises a triable issue and, therefore, the Controller ought to have granted
leave to contest so that he may produce evidence on record in support of this
part of his defence. The right to claim eviction accrues to a landlord under s.
14A of the Act and not under any notification issued by the Government. The
Government notification, general or special, only requires a landlord
Government allottee to vacate the accommodation as he owns his house or pay
penal rent.
The respondent submits that the general
notification dated September 9, 1975 and the special order dated December 26,
1975 have never been withdrawn. His contention is that there has been a
notification about the rate of rent/licence fee to be paid by a Government
employee, if he is also owner of his own house at the place of his posting and
does not vacate allotted premises. In short his contention is that right of
eviction is available to a landlord allottee of Government accommodation if he
fulfils the conditions mentioned in s. 14A of the Act. According to him there
is modification that if the income of the landlord from his own house does not
exceed Rs. 1,000 per month, he is liable to pay only the normal rent of the
Government allotted accommodation, but if his income from his own house exceeds
Rs. 1,000 and does not exceed Rs. 2,000 he is liable to pay half the market
rent and in cases where his income from his own house is above 66 Rs. 2,000 per
month, he is liable to pay full market rent. The respondent contends that s.
14A of the Act conferring upon a landlord/Government allottee (a right) to get
his own vacated has never been repealed.
The learned counsel for the respondent
further contends that mere assertion of the petitioner that the notifications
have been withdrawn is vague and does not give him any right to leave to
contest and lead any evidence.......If any notification has been withdrawn or
cancelled, such an order must be in writing. The petitioner/tenant in his
application does not disclose any notification under which the Government
notification requiring a landlord/Government employee to vacate has been
withdrawn.
... ... ... ...
Thus the notification dated September 9, 1975
stands modified to the extent as to what rate of rent would be payable by the
respondent Government allottee/landlord owning his own house if he retains the
allotted premises, that is, if he fails to vacate the Government accommodation
in pursuance of the general order dated September 9, 1975 and the special order
dated December 26, 1975. The income of the respondent from his own house, that
is, suit property No. 164 Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi is Rs. 1,950 per month.
He is getting Rs. 850 per month from the petitioner occupying first floor and
Rs. 1,100 per month from 'Escorts' occupying the ground floor. In accordance with
the notification dated July 14, 1977, the respondent/landlord is thus liable to
pay half the market rent from June 1, 1977 if he does not vacate the Government
allotted accommodation. In fact after the issue of notification dated July 14,
1977 the respondent has been directed to pay half the market rent by means of
an order dated September 20, 1977 issued by the Directorate of Estates,
Government of India with effect from June 1, 1977. In short, it is certain that
there is the general notification dated September 9, 1975 and the special order
dated December 26, 1975 requiring the respondent/landlord to vacate the
Government allotted residential accommodation or in default to pay half the
market rent. In other words he is to incur certain obligations, The liability
is on account of the fact that he owns 67 the house in suit in the Union
Territory of Delhi, his place of posting.
... ... ... ...
On December 12, 1979 Directorate of Estates
was required to state whether the notification dated September 9, 1975 stands
withdrawn or it was simply modified. The Directorate of Estates in his letter
dated December 14, 1979 informed that the Memorandum dated September 9, 1975
was not withdrawn but was only modified by the Memorandum dated July 14, 1977.
... ... ... ...
So if the two notifications dated September
9, 1975 and July 14, 1977 are read together, it appears that there is no
cancellation of the earlier notification and that it is only a notification of
the rate of rent payable by an allottee owning his own house. Under this
notification dated July 14, 1977 it is further provided that with effect from
June 1, 1977 rent of allotted premises shall be recovered from the house owning
officials retaining the premises at the rates mentioned therein. The respondent
is, therefore, liable to pay the rent accordingly and thus liable to incur
obligation in default of vacating the premises.
... ... ... ...
The respondent satisfies the requirement of
s. 14A of the Act. There is no defence available to the petitioner against the
eviction application under s. 14A of the Act".
... ... ... ...
In the present case also there is nothing on
record to show that the obligation imposed upon respondent by the first
notification to vacate the Government accommodation within three months from
the 1st of October 1975 and by the special order dated 22.1.1976 by 31.12.1975,
has been withdrawn. The respondent can continue to 68 occupy the Government
accommodation only subject to certain obligations. We, therefore, hold that the
respondent is entitled to have recourse to s. 14A of the Act for evicting the
appellants from the premises in question. Accordingly the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back
