JUDGEMENT
B. P. Singh, J. -
(1.)In this appeal by special leave appellant Nathi Devi is the tenant while respondent Radha Devi Gupta is the landlord who filed an application for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that she required the premises for her bona fide personal need invoking the provisions of Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which, according to her, entitled her to immediate possession of the premises in question being a widow landlady. The appellant filed an affidavit and prayed for leave to defend on the ground that the petition raised many triable issues. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by his judgment and order dated 12th November, 1997 after considering the submissions urged before him came to the conclusion that the tenant had failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend as she had failed to raise any triable issue. He, therefore, allowed the petition under Section 14D of the Act and passed an order of eviction.
(2.)The appellant then moved the High Court in C.R. No. 70/98 and C.M. No. 298/98 impugning the order of eviction passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The High Court concurred with the view of the Additional Rent Controller and held that since the landlady was a widow, and the premises were required by her for her own residence, the conditions for the applicability of Section 14D of the Act were fulfilled and hence the learned Additional Rent Controller committed no mistake in refusing leave to defend to the appellant.
(3.)When this special leave petition came up for admission before a bench consisting of two learned Judges of this Court, counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87 which supported the contention of the appellant that the landlady who acquired the tenanted premises in question by transfer, could not avail of the remedy of eviction of a pre-existing tenant resorting to Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The learned Judges doubted the correctness of the decision, and since the decision in Surjit Singh Kalra was by a bench consisting of three Judges, the special leave petition was directed to be placed before a three Judge bench by order dated 26th April, 1999. Thereafter this Court granted special leave to appeal by order dated 10th September, 1999.