Decided on March 11,1954

HEM CHAND Appellant


- (1.) This petition arising out of a matter under the Delhi and Ajmer-Mewara Rent Control Act has been referred to us by my lord the Chief Justice as he considered that the matter was of some importance and it was desirable to have an authoritative pronouncement from a larger Bench.
(2.) The matter arose out of a petition by the landlord of premises situated in Delhi for the ejectment of a tenant. There was also a prayer for the recovery of arrears of rent but this matter is no longer before us. He sought ejectment on the ground that the tenant had constructed his own house and had moved into it and he was, therefore, entitled to claim ejectment under the provisions of Section 9(1)(f) of the Act. The defence of the tenant was that he was using the premises in the original instance of residential purposes and also for his business. He had built a residence for himself and had moved into it but his business was still being carried on in the premises in dispute and he was, therefore, not liable to ejectment. Another line of defence taken by him was that no notice of ejectment had been served upon him by the landlord and in the absence of such notice he could not be ejected under law.
(3.) It is second point which is of greater importance and this point has been argued at some length by Ms. Bishan Narain. He has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act and has pointed out that the Act is intended to control the right of the landlord to eject his tenant. He can only claim ejectment on certain restricted grounds which are set out in Section 9. The Act does not control, effect or alter the procedure for ejectment in any way, and since under the Transfer of Property Act a landlord is bound to serve his tenant with a notice under Section 106 before he can claim ejectment that notice is necessary even when the landlord seeks relief under Section 9 of the Act Mr. Bishan Narain has sought to distinguish some cases which have dealt with similar matters arising of other suits, and he has contended that a Division Bench decision of this Court in Bawa Singh and another v. Kundan Lal, 1952 54 PunLR 358is, if not erroneous, at any rate distinguishable. There are certain observations in the judgment of my brother Kapur, J., in that judgment which, however, apply with the equal force to the case before us. It was observed that the Act which in that instance was the East Punjab Act was a complete Code in itself and its provisions supersede the provisions of the Transfer of this Act. Hence liability to ejectment is governed by the provisions of this Act and not by the provisions of the Transfer of the Property Act. Therefore, no notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act is necessary.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.