2010 (9) TMI 1079

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efend in the eviction proceeding filed against her by the respondent under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter, 'the said Act'). 2. The material facts of the case are that the respondent, a widow, filed a petition under Section 14-D of the said Act to recover immediate possession of the premises of which the appellant is a tenant in one room, kitchen, bathroom, latrine and courtyard on the first floor of property No.4899-A Gali Maulvi Abdul Rahim, Bara Hindu Rao, Dehli at a rent of Rs. 100/- per month and other charges. 3. Admittedly, the respondent purchased the property in question by a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1961 and the appellant was inducted as a tenant in the said property by the previous owner. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were not let out by her husband or by her but were in fact let out by the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioner. The admitted position is that the suit premises were purchased by the petitioner some time in 1961. She, unfortunately, became a widow in 1980. It has been held by various judgments of this Court such as Mr. B.M. Chanana Vs. Union of India and others, 1990 (18) DRJ 55; Mrs. Sarla Luthra Vs. M/s. Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1993 (25) DRJ 52 and Bhupinder Singh Vs. Janak Rani, 1948 (47) DRJ 789 that the provisions of Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be given restricted meaning. It is immaterial that the suit premises were let out by the predecessorin- interest or the widow. The expression "letting ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r that sub-section in respect of any one of the premises chosen by her." 8. In Nathi Devi (supra) this Court noticed the difference of opinion between the decision of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 87, and the decision of this Court in Kanta Goel vs. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 9. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Nathi Devi (supra), upholding the reasoning given by this Court in Surjit Singh Kalra (supra) held as follows: "...The expression "let out by her, or by her husband" is not an expression which permits of any ambiguity. We must, therefore, give it its normal meaning. So understood the conclusion is inescapable that the legislative intent was only to confer a special ri....