Rajendra Kumar Tandon vs Rahabar Production Pvt. Limited

V.B. Bansal, J.

(1) This order will dispose of this revision petition field by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tandon against the order dated 4 5.92 of Shri S.M. Gupta, Rent Controller, Delhi, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 14(c) of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the ground floor of the premises bearing No. G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, comprising of two bed-rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen. one pantry, two bathrooms-cum-WCs. and open court-yard were Jet out to the respondent by late Shri D.R. Tandon, father of the petitioner, in November 1963, on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 310.00. The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of the premises on the basis of a Will dated 6.2.1981 of his father.

(3) It was claimed by the petitioner that his family consisted of himself his wife, one son and a daughter. He was posted as Deputy Chief Engineer (Northern Railways) at Bikaner wherefrom he was transferred to Delhi on 13.7.87 and retired on 23.7.87.

(4) According to the petitioner, after his transfer he shifted to the first floor of the premises G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, consisting of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, one pantry, one W.C., one bathroom, one latrine and a verandah. It was claimed by the petitioner that the accommodation available with him was not sufficient and, so the petition was filed u/s 14(0 of the Act as the premises in question were required by him for his own residence and the residence of the family members dependent upon him.

(5) The application was contested by the tenant respondent who filed an application for leave to defend supported with an affidavit. It was Interalia pleaded by the respondent that the provisions of Section 14C of the Act are not attracted in view of the fact that the petitioner was asking for additional accommodation while being already in occupation of the entire first floor and even the second floor of the premises. It was also pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner was having another property, i.e. ground floor house No. E-88, Malcha Marg Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi, having two rooms, drawing-dining unit and the said premises were being let out to various tenants for higher rents. The averments made by the respondent were controverter by the petitioner by way of filing a rejoinder.

(6) The learned Rent Controller after hearing Counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the remedy of the petitioner lies u/s 14(1)(C) of the Act and not u/s 14C and, thus, dismissed THE petition.

(7) I have heard the petitioner in person and Shri Rajeev Nanda, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(8) The petitioner has submitted that the learned Rent Controller has Committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the judgment in case Madan Lal Lamba Vs. Tarlok Singh Sehgal, ,inasmuch as this judgment is contrary to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case Dr. P.P. Kapur v. Union of India & Others, (1990 (2) DL 344. He has also submitted that the petitioner before his transfer to Delhi was occupying a very big house at Bikaner having more than 10rooms and on transfer to Delhi only 10 days before his retirement had no option but to shift to the first floor of premises bearing No. G-47, Kirti Nagar, News Delhi. He has further submitted that Section 14C of the Act is an enabling provision for the benefit of the persons retiring from government service and it would not make any difference if a portion of the premises is already in possession of the owner since he came claim benefit under this provision, regardless of the fact whether the premises were let out for residential or residential-cum-commercial purposes. He has further submitted that a provision has been made in the Act to punish the landlord who after getting the premises vacated u/s 14C of the Act lets out the same to others within a period of three years and in this way the interest of the tenant is property safeguarded to ensure that the landlord does not take undue advantage of this provision. He has further submitted that the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Dr. P.P. Kapur v. Union of India & Others (Supra) has clearly mentioned that it makes no difference as to whether a landlord is in occupation of a portion of the same building or has been residing in another rented house or is even on road. In this way he has submitted that the Rent Controller ought to have placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. P.P. Kapury. Union of India & Others (Supra) and, thus, prayed that the impugned order maybe set aside.

(9) Learned Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that there has been a clear pronouncement of this Court in the case of Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) to the effect that if the land-lord has been in occupation of an independent dwelling unit in the same premises, the remedy lies in moving a fresh petition u/s 14(l)(e)of the Act and not u/s 14C. He has also submitted that the Division Bench judgment referred to by the learned Single Judge and this decision in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) has even been upheld by the Supreme Court, in as much as, the SLP No.3147/93 titled Ramesh Kumar Seth v. Mohan Lal & Others has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12.11.1992 against the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 801 of 1992 titled Ramesh Kumar Seth v. MakhanLal Halwai in which reliance was placed on the judgment in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra). It has, thus, been submitted that the learned Trial Court has correctly concluded that the remedy of the petitioner lies in moving a petition u/s 14(l)(e) of the Act, and thus, prayed that this revision petition may be dismissed.

(10) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions and have carefully gone through the judgments referred to above. In Madan Lal Lamba''s (Supra) case it has clearly been held that where a landlord has been in possession of first floor, which is an independent dwelling unit, and claims possession of the ground floor u/s 14C of the Act the petition would not be maintainable on account of his already being in possession of a unit and the only remedy available to him would be to file a petition u/s 14(l)(e) of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the case Narain Khamman Vs. Parduman Kumar Jain, . Reference has also been made in this case to the Division Bench Judgment in Dr. P.P. Kapur''s case (Supra) and it has been held that the main question for decision in the said case was about the virus of the provisions contained in Section 14D of the Act and prior to that the validity of Section 14(B), 14(c) and 14D of the Act came up for decision in case B.M. Chanana v. Union of India & Others. 1989 (4) DL 246.

(11) It is also pertinent ro note that the judgment in case Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) has been followed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 575 of 1991 titled Tara Chand v. Santokh Singh as also in Civil Revision Petition No. 24 of 1992 titled Ram Kishan Kara v. Amaranath. It may also be noted that a petition for eviction u/s 14C of the Act filed by Ramesh Kumar Seth against Makhan Lal Halwai & Others bearing No. 48/92 was dismissed by the Rent Controller on23.9.92. Civil Revision Petition No. 801/92 against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 12.11.1992 placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal (Supra) and SLP against this judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on12.11.1992.

(12) Considering all these facts, I am clearly of the view that the learned Rent Controller has correctly come to the conclusion that the petitioner being already in possession of an india unit in House No.G-47, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, cannot claim possession cf on the ground floor of the premises ill occupation of the respondent u/s 14(c) of the Act. I do not find and error in the impugned older and there is no scope for interference with the same. In these circumstances, the- revision petition is dismissed.