Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two civil appeals by special leave arising from contradictory judgments of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi. The litigation concerned ejectment suits filed by landlords under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 against tenants on the ground that the tenants had erected unauthorised structures in violation of lease conditions imposed by Government or Delhi Improvement Trust. The leases prohibited erection of buildings without prior written consent. In both cases, notices were issued by authorities against unauthorised constructions. One case involved closing an open verandah and erecting a partition; the other involved closing a verandah with glazing later replaced by wire-gauze net. During pendency of the suits, the tenants removed the offending structures, leaving no further breach. The sole question was whether the tenants could still be ejected after removal, and whether the first proviso to Section 57(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (which repealed the 1952 Act) permitted application of Section 14(11) of the 1958 Act. The landlords contended that once a breach under clause (k) of proviso to Section 13(1) of 1952 Act occurred, the tenant was liable to ejectment regardless of removal or notice. The court examined the scope of the first proviso to Section 57(2) in light of Karam Singh v. Sri Pratap Chand, which held that radical departures in the 1958 Act would not apply to pending proceedings, but slight modifications or clarifications would. The court found that Section 14(11) of the 1958 Act, which allowed the Controller to grant relief to tenant if conditions complied with, was not a radical departure but a clarification and slight modification of the court's existing power under the 1952 Act to grant relief against forfeiture on analogy of Section 114A of Transfer of Property Act. The court further held that although the language of proviso to Section 13(1) of 1952 Act was imperative, it did not prevent granting relief when the breach had been removed. Consequently, the court held that regard could be had to Section 14(11) of the 1958 Act and granted relief to the tenants in both appeals, thereby holding they could not be ejected after removing unauthorised structures during pendency of proceedings.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Pending Proceedings - Applicability of Repeal and Saving Provision - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 57(2) first proviso - Where 1958 Act made a radical departure from 1952 Act, pending proceedings continued to be governed by 1952 Act; but where 1958 Act only slightly modified or clarified previous provisions, such modifications or clarifications applied. Section 14(11) of 1958 Act was not a radical departure but clarified and slightly modified relief available under 1952 Act, hence its provisions could be considered in pending suits. (Pages 710-712) B) Rent Control - Unauthorised Structures - Ejectment Ground - Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, Section 13(1) proviso clause (k) - Tenant liable to ejectment for causing substantial damage or using premises contrary to lease conditions; however, if tenant removed offending structures before or during suit, court could grant relief against forfeiture on analogy of Section 114A Transfer of Property Act. (Pages 710-711) C) Rent Control - Relief Against Forfeiture - Removal of Unauthorised Construction - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(11) - Section 14(11) gave Controller power to allow tenant to comply with requirements instead of eviction; this provision clarified and slightly modified what court could already do under 1952 Act, and therefore applied to pending proceedings via Section 57(2). Tenants who removed unauthorised structures were entitled to relief from ejectment. (Pages 711-712) D) Statutory Interpretation - Imperative Language - Effect on Relief - Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, Section 13(1) proviso - Language of proviso was imperative and laid down that nothing in Act applied when clauses satisfied; however, this did not prevent court from granting relief against forfeiture in proper case under inherent principles read with Section 114A Transfer of Property Act. Held that imperative language did not bar relief where breach cured. (Pages 709-710)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a tenant who had erected unauthorised structures in violation of lease conditions could still be ejected under clause (k) of proviso to Section 13(1) of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 after removing the offending structures during pendency of suit, and whether the first proviso to Section 57(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 permitted application of Section 14(11) of the 1958 Act to grant relief to such tenant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that regard could be had to provisions of Section 14(11) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and granted relief to the tenants in both appeals. Tenants who removed unauthorised structures before or during pendency of suit were not liable to ejectment.
Law Points
- Under Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952
- a tenant who removed unauthorised structures before or during pendency of ejectment suit could be granted relief against forfeiture on analogy of Section 114A of Transfer of Property Act
- first proviso to Section 57(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 applied to pending proceedings where 1958 Act slightly modified or clarified previous provisions
- Section 14(11) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 did not constitute a radical departure from 1952 Act and empowered court to grant relief to tenant
- language of proviso to Section 13(1) of 1952 Act was imperative but did not preclude relief.
