Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
JAIN MALLEABLES
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BHARAT SAHAY
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/12/1981
BENCH:
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
BENCH:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
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.
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
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 Ist 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.
69