R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) Tenant inducted in 1979, for three years, by the landlord under a written agreement, in C-4/33, Safdarjang Development Area, New Delhi, with permission of Controller under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for brevity the 'Act) seeks leave of this Court on limited question of law if proceedings for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Act could be initiated and continued by legal representatives of the landlord who had obtained permission but who died before expiry of period of tenancy.
(2.) Answer of it shall depend, primarily, on construction of word 'landlord' used in Section 21, a provision held to be self contained code in Shiv Chand Kapoor V. Amar Bose, (1990) 1 SCC 234 and also the purpose and objective of its enactment as provision of short duration tenancy or periodical tenancy in Rent Control Act of Delhi right from 1952, is unique amongst such legislations and is probably non existent in any other State. It reads as under: 21. Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period.- (1) Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any premises for a particular period, and the landlord, after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner, lets the whole of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not, on the expiry of the said period, vacate such premises, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed, place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation of such premises. (2) While making an order under subsection (1), the Controller may award to the landlord such damages for the use or occupation of the premises at such rates as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case for the period from the date of such order till the date of actual vacation by the tenant."
(3.) What it, undoubtedly, projects is the legislative awareness of acute crisis of houses in the State. To resolve the paucity of accommodation, on one hand, due to enormous influx of office personnel and business class as a result of rapid growth of social, economic and political activity and apprehension of houseowners, on other, bulk of whom hail from middle class or service class, of losing their houses if not for good then for substantial period due to development of strange Phenomenon in bit, cities that allotted or rented houses are more economical than, even own the legislature which is the best judge of need of its people carved out an exception to usual rent control provisions of protecting tenants from eviction. What was unique of it was not short duration tenancy but a fresh look on eviction. Vacant possession was ensured, statutorily, without any notice, or termination of tenancy or the hazard of establishing bona fide need and comparative hardship etc. Section 21 is an, exception to Section 14 and it mandates restoration of possession, "notwithstanding any other law" it has to be construed strictly ,and against any attempt to frustrate it. Intensity of it can be appreciated, better if its language, is compared with other provisions of recovery of possession even though those provisions, namely, 14A, 14B, 14C and 14D, were introduced later. They also provide speedy remedy to recover possession. But the landlord cannot succeed unless he is able to prove circumstances mentioned in it. More than this the tenant has been given right to contest under Section 25B. Import of Section 21 on the other hand is altogether different. It enjoins Controller to place landlord in vacant possession after expiry of time without any right to tenant to contest it except to the limited extent that permission was vitiated by fraud as held in S. B Noronah v. Prem Kumari Khanna, (1980) 1 SCC 52 or misuse of the provisions by landlord taking advantage of helpless situation of the tenant as held in V. S. Rahe v. Smt. Rem Chambeh (1984) 1 SCC 612 or the permission really did not create genuine tenancy as held in Shiv Chand Kapoor v. Amar Bose Supra. Recovery of possession under Section 21 is not hedged, by any inquiry or opportunity, if permission is not challenged on any of those exceptions which have been carved out by courts, obviously, to uphold fairness and honesty the core of our jurisprudence. Right to get vacant possession is, thus absolute.;