Budh Ram Sharma vs Banwari Lal and Another

V.D. Misra, J.

(1) This is tenant''s second appeal u/s 39 of the Delhi Rant Control Act of 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the Kent Control Tribunal upholding the order of eviction of the tenant passed by the Additional Rent Controller.

(2) The tenant had taken on rent premises No 4307 Gali Bhairon Wall for residential purposes. He built a house in IShaiba-bad colony, which is situated at a distance of about 10 miles from Delhi, the land lord filed an application for his eJectment on the ground amongst others, that the tenant has built and acquired vacant possession of a residence in Shaiba-bad colony. The tenant admitted the construction of the said house but contended that his case did not fall under clause (b) of the proviso io sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The Additional Rant Controller negatived the contention and ordered his ejectment. His appeal to the Kent Control Tribunal was also dismissed

(3) The short question for determination is whether a tenant who has built or acquired vacant possession of a house for his residence outside Delhi would fall under cl. (h) of the Proviso to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Section 14(1)(h) is as under;-

" Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favor 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,: (h) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commence- ment of this Act built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a residence"-

This clause makes a tenant liable for eviction if he has built a house for residence. But can it be said that he would be liable for eviction if he has built a house for residence anywhere in India: or is that he becomes liable for eviction if he has built the house in the area to which this Act extends. (4) The rapid growth of population of Delhi resulting in a serious shortage of housing accommodation resulted in un-proportionately high rents, , were tempted to terminate the ten uncles of the existing tenants and ask for their eviction in order to let out premises to the new tenants at exorbitant rents. In order to meet the situation necessary legislation for controlling the rent and eviction of tenants was enacted. As the preamble of this Act shows it was enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions in certain areas in the Union territory of Delhi This underlying object of Section 14(1)(h) was that in view of the growing shortage of housing accommodation in Delhi a tenant should not be allowed to have more than one house for residence in Delhi. It was provided that in case a tenant built a residence, the landlord could get his house vacated. It would not have been the intention that a tenant should not have another house for residence anywhere in India. Usually a person has a house, may be in a village in remote corner of the country. To put his tenancy in jeopardy in Delhi for that reason is unwarranted. Sec- corporation 1(2) of the Act lays down the area of Delhi to which the Act extends, which does not include rural areas within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is thus reasonable to infer that before a tenant becomes liable to ejectment u/s 14(1)(h), it should be proved that he has built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a residence within the areas to which this Act extends,

(5) The learned counsel f)r the landlord contends that if the ten- ant builds a residence anywhere in India, he would make himself liable for eviction. Reliance is placed on an unreported decision of the Punjab High Court in Kishan Chand Bharsavi v. Hari Nath Rastogi decided on 31st October, 1961. ln this case the learned single Judge was interpreting section 13(1)(h) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Con- rol Act. 1952, which was exactly in the same words as clause (h) ref- erred to above, except that the word ^suitable" before the word residence" has been omitted in the present clause. I find that in this case the attention of the learned judge was not drawn to the fact that the Act extended only to those areas of Delhi which were mentioned therein.

(6) The result is that the house built by the tenant being in area to which the Act does not extend, he cannot be evicted on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(h) of the Act.

(7) The appeal, Therefore, is accepted and the order of the Rent Control of Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case. there will be no order as to costs.

--- *** ---