Liaq Ahmed & Ors Vs. Shri
Habeeb-Ur-Rehman [2000] INSC 274 (28 April 2000)
S. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi.
SETHI,J.
Leave granted.
L.I.T.J
Rent control legilsations have been
acknowledged to be pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just
balance between the rights of the landlord and the requirements of the tenants.
Such legislations prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of
evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This Court
in Mangat Ram vs. Kedar Nath [1980(4) SCC 276] held that where the Rent Acts
afford a real and sanctified protection to the tenant, the same should not be
nullified by giving a hyper-technical or liberal construction to the language
of the statute which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in
its frustration. The Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection
to the tenants.
The history of the legislation regarding Rent
Controls in the country would show that the Rent Acts were enacted to overcome
the difficulties arising out of the scarcity of the accommodation which arose
primarily due to the growth of industrialisation and commercialisation and
inflow of the population to the urban areas. Such legislations were initially
confined to the big cities like Bombay, Calcutta and Rangoon but their
jurisdiction was gradually extended to other areas in the country. Because of
scarcity of the accommodation and gradual rise in the rents due to appreciation
of the value of urban properties, the landlords were found to be in a position
to exploit the situation for their unjustified personal gains which were
consequently detrimental to the helpless tenants who were subjected to uncalled
for litigation for eviction. It thus became imperative for the Legislature to
intervene to protect the tenants against harassment and exploitation by the
landlords for which appropriate legislations came to be passed by almost all
the States and Union Territories in the country with the paramount object of
essentially safeguarding the interest of tenants and for their benefit. The
Rent Acts also made provision for safeguarding the interests of genuine
landlords. The Rent Acts are intended to preserve social environment and
promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of the tenants mainly and
at the same time protecting the legitimate interests of the landlords. The
provisions of the Rent Acts are, therefore, not required to be interpreted in a
hyper-technical manner which in cases may result in frustrating the object for
which the legislation was made. It should be kept in mind that the Rent Acts
undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose benefits they were
essentially passed.
The rational approach in interpreting the law
relating to the control of rents is expected from the courts dealing with the
cases under the statutes relating to rent by keeping in mind the object of the
legislation intended to provide social justice preventing unscrupulous landlord
to exploit the circumstances and force the tenants to submit to their pressure
under the threat of eviction.
Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred
to as "the Act") has also been enacted to provide for the control of
rents and evictions of the tenants from the premises covered by the Act.
Section 2(e) and (l) define 'landlord' and 'tenant' respectively. Section 14
provides protection to the tenants against eviction. Eviction against a tenant
can be ordered by the Rent Controller only on the grounds specified in various
clauses and sub-sections of the said Section. Section 14(A) to 14(D) confer
rights upon the landlord to recover immediate possession of premises on the
grounds mentioned therein. Section 15 specifies the circumstances where the
tenant can get protection against his eviction. If the eviction of the tenant
is sought under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, as was the prayer made by the
respondent herein, the tenant of the premises upon service of the summons can
pray to obtain leave from the Controller to defend the case. Sub-section (5) of
Section 25B provides: "25B(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant
leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses
such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the
recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of
the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14-A." From
the scheme of the Act it is evident that if tenant discloses grounds and pleads
a cause which prima facie is not baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller
is obliged to grant him leave to defend his case against the eviction sought by
the landlord. The enquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary enquiry to
prima facie find out the existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the
tenant. If the tenant brings to the notice of the Controller, such facts as
would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession,
the Controller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the
disclosure of facts and not the proof of the facts. In the instant case the
Controller as well as the High Court appear to have completely ignored the
object of the Rent Control legislation and the scheme of the Act while dealing
with the case of the appellants.
The facts in the present case are that the
respondent claiming to be the owner on the basis of a sale deed executed in his
favour on 25th November, 1991 registered on 27th November, 1991, filed a
petition seeking eviction of the appellants on the ground of his bonafide
requirement as contemplated under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the
Act. The claim of the landlord was resisted by the appellants on the ground that
the property, the subject matter of litigation, is vested in the Custodian of
Enemy Properties for India which could not be alienated or sold to the
respondent-landlord. Reliance was placed on Section 18 of the Enemy Properties
Act, 1968. It was further pleaded that under Section 19 of the said Act the
Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. The appellants further submitted that the
sale deed in favour of the respondent was not legal and genuine as the same was
allegedly made by persons who had become Pakistani nationals and had thus
legally forfeited their title, rights and interests in the property. The
appellants further pleaded that they had become owner of the property by
adverse possession.
Appearing for the appellants Shri Bargi,
learned Advocate has submitted that his clients forego their claim of being the
owners of the property by adverse possession and restrict their claim to be the
tenants thereof having a right to resist the claim of the respondent and to
remain in possession of the property in accordance with the provisions of law
applicable in the case.
In support of their case the appellants had
relied upon Annexure P-1 which was an intimation by the Custodian of Enemy
Properties for India to the grandfather of the appellants to the effect that the
property had vested in the custodian of enemy properties for India. The
aforesaid communication read as under:
"With reference to your letter dated
30.9.70 I have to state that the above premises vests in the Custodian of Enemy
Property for India. The Tehsildar, Tis Hazari, Delhi has been authorised by the
Custodian to collect rent in respect of the premises. You are, therefore,
requested to pay the rent to the above mentioned Tehsildar against his official
receipt under intimation to this office." The Rent Controller negatived
the plea of the appellants by taking into consideration order dated 30th March,
1954 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) in relation to the premises
whereby property No.1761 situated at Ward No.XIX, Delhi had declared as non
evacuee property. It appears that the Rent Controller failed to see the
distinction between the Evacuee Property Act under which the order dated 30th
March, 1954 was passed and the Enemy Property Act, 1968 regarding which letter
Exhibit P-1 dated 15th October, 1970 was issued intimating that the property,
the subject matter of the litigation, had vested in the Custodian of Enemy
Properties for India. The question as to whether the property had actually
vested or not, the consequence of its vesting or non-vesting and the
authenticity of the sale deed relied upon by the respondent, were the questions
which could be determined only at the trial after the appellants were granted
leave to contest the claim of the respondent-landlord. The pleas raised by the
appellants could not, in any way, be termed to be frivolous, baseless, unreal
and unfounded. If that be the position, the Controller was obliged to grant the
leave and after affording the parties opportunity, adjudicate the rival claims.
Thus the orders of the Rent Controller and that of the High Court suffers from
inherent legal infirmities which are required to be set aside.
Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed
by setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.10.1997 and that of
the High Court dated 16.4.1999, impugned in this appeal. The appellants herein
are granted leave to defend the eviction petition in terms of the provisions of
the Act.
The Rent Controller is, however, directed to
expedite the disposal of the petition filed by the respondent-landlord after
affording the parties reasonable opportunity of proving their cases. No costs.
Back
