Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2069 (DEL)

TEXMACO LTD v. SH. POORAN CHAND

2006-11-13

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2006
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as the said Act ). The petition was dismissed by the additional Rent Controller in terms of the Order dated 10. 07. 1998 and the order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in terms of the order dated 13. 11. 2003. Thereafter the present petition has been filed under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy, it is first necessary to re-produce the relevant provision. "14. Protection of tenant against eviction 1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant; provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-i) that the premises were let to the tenant for use as a resident by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, to be in such service or employment; ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent was made available the accommodation in question as a condition of service by M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd which had been amalgamated with the petitioner. Petitioner sought to rely upon an allotment letter dated 29. 12. 76 (Exaw1/2) alleged to have been signed by the respondent. However, during the course of evidence it emerged that the occupation of the respondent was from 1947 which was also the date of employment with the predecessor company of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE courts below have placed great weight on the fact that this allotment letter could not be relied upon since it was much after the occupation of the premises by the respondent. ( 4 ) THE courts below have placed great weight on the fact that this allotment letter could not be relied upon since it was much after the occupation of the premises by the respondent. It was further observed that since the premises were occupied prior to the respondent coming into employment of M/s Birla Cotton spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd, provisions of Section 14 (1) (i) would not apply. ( 5 ) THERE is no doubt that in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not the jurisdiction of this court to sit as a court of appeal and to re-appraise evidence but to correct any patent or jurisdictional error. The relevant aspect in the present case is that undisputedly the testimony of rw1, the respondent, clearly shows that it is the case of the respondent itself that the respondent joined the services of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving mills Ltd in the year 1947 and was allegedly let out the quarter 4-5 days before that. In cross examination he admitted that the premises were let out to him on 22. 12. 1947, which is also the date of his joining service. Thus the date of allotment of the quarter and his employment was the same date. ( 6 ) IT cannot be lost sight of that the object of the provisions of Section 14 (1) (i) of the said Act is that the premises made available to the tenant for his use as residence by reason of him being in service or employment of landlord are not liable for further occupations when such employment ceases. The employment ceased as far back as 1984 and at present the premises are occupied by the widow of the respondent who has passed away during the pendency of the present petition. ( 7 ) IN my considered view the the trial court thus fell into a patent error in holding that the employment and the occupation were not co-terminus. In fact even if the quarter had been occupied a couple of days before, the same would not have made any difference. Apparently, the allotment letter dated 29. 12. 1976 only formalized the arrangement which was already in existence. In fact even if the quarter had been occupied a couple of days before, the same would not have made any difference. Apparently, the allotment letter dated 29. 12. 1976 only formalized the arrangement which was already in existence. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, both the impugned orders of the Additional Rent controller and the Rent Control Tribunal cannot be sustained and are set aside. ( 9 ) AT this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states that he really cannot dispute the aforesaid legal position as applicable to the facts of the case and does not want to even seriously contest the matter or take the challenge any further. Learned counsel however states that some time period may be granted to the respondent to vacate the quarter subject to furnishing of usual undertaking. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid, it is agreed that respondents be granted time till 31. 03. 2008 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises and the eviction order shall not be executed till that date subject to the respondent furnishing the formal undertaking to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises on or before the said date, not to sublet or part with possession and to pay the last agreed rent month by month in advance by the 7th of each month. The undertaking be filed within a week with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner which undertaking as furnished has been accepted. The petition stands allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.