1977 (4) TMI 174 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules against eviction in tenant dispute under section 14A.

KANTA GOEL Versus B.P. PATHAK

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the first respondent could not evict multiple tenants under section 14A. The Court ordered an exchange ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of eviction under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.2. Status of the first respondent as the landlord.3. Applicability of section 14A(1) proviso regarding multiple evictions.4. Procedural objections regarding the absence of co-heirs.Summary:1. Validity of Eviction u/s 14A:The case pertains to an ejectment proceeding u/s 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Controller directed eviction, refusing leave to the tenant to contest the application. The High Court affirmed the eviction on different grounds, missing a plea fatal to the landlord's claim. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal, resulting in a re-adjustment between the parties.2. Status of the First Respondent as Landlord:The respondent, an Under Secretary to the Government, was required to vacate government-allotted residential premises as he owned a house in Delhi. The appellant contested that the first respondent was not the landlord and that the premises were not let out by him. The Court held that the first respondent, as an heir stepping into his father's shoes, represented the former owner and lessor, thus falling within section 14A. The Court emphasized that the respondent, who collected rent and issued receipts, functioned as the landlord.3. Applicability of Section 14A(1) Proviso:The appellant argued that the first respondent had already evicted another tenant using section 14A and kept the premises vacant. The Court agreed, stating that section 14A cannot be used to evict multiple tenants. The proviso to section 14A(1) restricts a landlord owning multiple dwelling houses from recovering possession of more than one. The Court concluded that the first respondent's right to evict was exhausted after recovering one dwelling house.4. Procedural Objections Regarding Absence of Co-Heirs:The appellant raised an objection that other heirs of the late Das were necessary parties but were not impleaded at the trial stage. The High Court later impleaded the co-heirs. The Court found that the presence of co-heirs at the High Court level was sufficient and their absence at the trial stage did not vitiate the Controller's order. The Court dismissed the appellant's contention regarding the will and the co-heirs' consent.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed on the ground that the first respondent could not use section 14A to evict multiple tenants. The Court directed an exchange of premises between the parties, with the appellant moving into the vacant three-room apartment and surrendering the four-room apartment involved in the eviction proceedings. The appeal was allowed with the parties bearing their own costs.