S B NORONHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who has obtained special leave by an order of this court dated 19-12-1991 preferred the special leave petition under the following circumstances. She became the tenant of premises bearing No. B-8, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi. The rent was initially Rs. 3,500. 00 which came to be increased to Rs. 5,000. 00 and later on to Rs. 10,000. 00. The landlady preferred a petition for eviction before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14 (1 (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recovery of the premises.

(2.) Before the Additional Rent Controller, the plea of the tenant was since the rent was Rs. 10,000. 00 in view of Section 3 (c) of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 which barred jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in relation to premises where the rent was Rs. 10,000. 00 he would have no jurisdiction. This contention prevailed. Consequently by an order dated 15/12/1988, he held that he had no jurisdiction to try the eviction petition. Accordingly it was dismissed. Thereafter, the landlady preferred a civil suit for eviction. A writ petition was filed by the tenant in Civil Writ Petition No. 3451 of 1991 challenging the validity of the amending Act. The High court of Delhi by judgment dated 4/11/1991 dismissed the writ petition in view ofits earlier decision rendered in D. C. Bhatia v. Union of India. Challenging the correctness of the order, the special leave petition was preferred by the tenant. An order of this court dated 19-12-1991 was to the following effect:

(3.) It is, at this stage, the landlady has filed this interlocutory application praying for the revocation of the relief on the following grounds: (1 the tenant having non-suited the landlady by invoking the amendment had driven the landlady to file the suit. Where therefore the common law remedy of suit has been resorted to, the tenant cannot object in any manner whatever. Such a remedy is open to the landlady. (2 This important fact had not been disclosed to the court when seeking special leave petition. (3 Whatever it may be, the question of validity of the amendment does not arise, in these proceedings, since it is not that the landlady is anxious to prosecute the case before the Rent Controller ignoring the amendment. She has chosen to accept the decision of the Rent Controller and is now proceeding before the civil court which she is entitled to. Therefore, there is no justification for the tenant to approach this court challenging the validity of the amendment and seeking special leave. In these circumstances, special leave should be revoked. Mr. Harish Salve reiterates these grounds and states that in the petition for special leave, it is stated that the proceedings before the Rent Controller were not material. This is suppression of a fact.