Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Ravinder Kumar
EmailWITH
Contempt Petition(C) No. 249 of 2000
IN
Special Leave Petition (C) No.10729 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.2000 of the Delhi High Court in C.R.No. 303 of 2000)
WITH
Contempt Petition(C) No. 249 of 2000
IN
Special Leave Petition (C) No.10729 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.2000 of the Delhi High Court in C.R.No. 303 of 2000)
In-person for Contempt Petition in Respondent No. 2 (NP).
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958)
a) Section 14A,25A,25B,25C and 54; Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance ) Act, 1956, Sections 3 and 19 – Tenant – Eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord – Rent Controller refusing leave to the tenant to contest the eviction petition – High Court affirming the order of the Rent controller – Plea of tenant that the property in question having been declared as slum area under the Slum Area Act of 1956, the landlord cannot evict the tenant without the previous permission of the competent authority – Sustainability of the plea – Held Sections 14A,25A,25B,25C and 54 having been inserted in the Rent Control Act subsequent to the enactment of the Slum Area Act, the provi-sion of the Rent Control Act would prevail over the provisions of the Slum Area Act – As the Rent Controller as well as High Court have examined the matter and concluded against the petitioner tenant there was no cause for any interference.
Petitioner sought to arise an additional ground relying upon a letter issued by the Director (Town Planning) on 29.06.2000 that the property in question in respect of which eviction is sought for is included in the areas which have already been declared as “Slum Areas” under Section 3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956. He further contended that Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act,1956 stands in the way of the landlord for evicting the tenant without obtaining previ-ous permission in writing of the competent authority. (Para 3)
This Court in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal, (AIR 1977 SC 256), held that the Delhi Rent Control Act wherein Chapter III-A and provisions of Section 14-A,25-A,25-B, 25-C and 54 have been inserted in 1975 later to the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance ) Act and, therefore, provisions of the Delhi Rent Act would prevail over the Alum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act. In view of the decision in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal case (supra) the contention raised by the petitioner cannot stand and the same stands rejected. (Para 4)
2. Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran , (JT 2000 (3) SC 397) (Para 2)
3. Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal (AIR 1977 SC 256) (Para 4)
S.L.P.(C)No.10729/2000
1. In this petition the petitioner is calling in question order passed by the High Court in a Revision Petition arising out of a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control. The Rent Controller refused to grant leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent for his bonafide need. The question as to the extent of accommodation the requirement of the respondent is dependent on actual facts arising in the case. Inasmuch as the Rent Controller as well as the High Court have examined the matter and concluded against the petitioner, we fail to under-stand as to how we can interfere with the decision made by the High Court affirming the order of the Rent Controller.
2. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon two decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran, (JT 2000 (3) SC 397), and Liaq Ahmed & Ors. v. Shri Ha-beeb-Ur-Rehman, (JT 2000(5) SC 611). Neither of these two deci-sions set down any principle of law so as to call for interfer-ence by us. In these two cases on the facts arising in the case certain orders have been by this Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to arise an addi-tional ground relying upon a letter issued by the Director (Town Planning) on 29.06.2000 that the property in question in respect of which eviction is sought for is included in the areas which have already been declared as “Slum Areas” under Section 3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956. He further con-tended that Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act,1956 stands in the way of the landlord for evict-ing the tenant without obtaining previous permission in writing of the competent authority.
4. This Court in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal, (AIR 1977 SC 256), held that the Delhi Rent Control Act wherein Chapter III-A and provisions of Section 14-A,25-A,25-B, 25-C and 54 have been inserted in 1975 later to the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance ) Act and, therefore, provisions of the Delhi Rent Act would prevail over the Alum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act. In view of the decision in Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal case (supra) the contention raised by the petitioner cannot stand and the same stands rejected.
5. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court and dismiss the petition.
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.249/2000 IN S.L.P. (C) NO. 10729/2000
6. When the special leave petition came up for consideration at the stage of preliminary hearing, this Court, while directing issue of notice to the respondents of the case also granted ad interim stay of execution of the decree for possession in the meantime. But even so, it appears,respondent no.1 with the help of respondent no.2 made an attempt to enforce the decree contrary to the order of this Court. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 is rather astonishing and is set out hereun-der:-
“I submit that the petitioner was granted stay of eviction on 24.7.2000 yet he made no effort to submit a certified copy of the stay order in the Court of the lear6ned Rent Controller or serve a copy on me although he is living in the same building. There-fore, when the petitioner showed only a photocopy of the proceed-ings dated 24.7.2000(not the stay order), I expressed my doubt and showed reluctance to believe that the copy is a genuine one. Therefore, I asked the contemner No.2 about the truthfulness and validity of the stay as he is supposed to have knowledge of the proceedings in such cases. The contemner no.2 told me that he is not bound by the orders of any other court as his concerned Court has given him the warrant of possession to get the eviction of the suit premises. Contemner no.2 further told me that it is the mandatory duty of the person having a stay order to inform the decree holder within 10 days of receiving the stay order and to intimate t he concerned court within 30 days. As the J.D. had not complied with this mandatory duty, contemner no.2 said that he is not bound to obey any order of any other court. Contemner no.2 further told that the J.D. had deliberately avoided to intimate any of the concerned parties. In view of the above facts stated by contemner no.2 to me,I asked the contemner no.2 to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises as per the orders of the concerned court.”
7. This prevaricating stand taken by the respondent is rather shocking. Whatever be the merits of the case when an interim stay is granted by this Court all authorities and persons are bound by the orders made by it and there should be implicit obedience to the same; and, if there is any violation thereof, t he same would result in erosion of the system itself. Therefore, the explana-tion offered by the first respondent is not at all satisfactory to mitigate the charge made against him.
8. However, it appears to us that the first contemner has acted at the guidance of the second contemner who is villain of the piece. At any rate at the intervention of the third contemner the actual possession of the property was not taken form the applic-ant and good sense prevailed. In these circumstances, we think, it is appropriate to close these proceedings subject to contemner no.1 and 2 pay to the applicant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each by way of exemplary cost and these proceedings come to an end on payment of the same. So far as the third contemner is concerned, the averments made in the petition are not very clear as to what his role has been. However,one thing is clear, that it is only at his intervention that the applicant has not been deprived of the possession of the property. Therefore, we discharge him and the proceedings against him shall stand dropped.
