509.50 at the market rate.
By reason of s. 25B 8 , numberappeal or second appeal lies against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Rent Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in s. 25B. The proviso companyfers power on the High Court, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Rent Controller under s. 25B is according to law, to call for the record of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th September, 1976 of the Delhi High Court in R. No.
65.05 but since he did number vacate the premises as required, the Government started charging him after January 1, 1976 a monthly rent of Rs.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants filed Civil Revision Application No.
The revision application was heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who, following his own earlier judgment in Civil Revision Application No.
him by the Gov ernment.
280 of 1976, dismissed it, giving rise to this appeal.
As a sequiter, the Rent Controller passed an order on the same date stating that since the appellants application for leave to companytest the ejectment application was rejected, respondent was enti tled to a decree for eviction.
That Act, in so far as it applied to the Union terri tory of Delhi, was repealed by s. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958.
XII, at Roshanara Road, New Delhi.
A question was raised before the High Court as to wheth er at the relevant time the respondent was in occupation of the premises allotted to him by the Government, but it was number disputed before us that he was in occupation of the premises allotted to him by the Government when he filed the present proceedings for eviction of the appellants.
This latter Act was passed in order to provide a suitable machinery for expeditious adjudication of proceedings between landlords and tenants to provide for the determination of standard rent payable by tenants and to give to the tenants a large measure of protection against eviction.
The landlord tenant relationship in Delhi was governed formerly by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 38 of 1952.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No,.
The appellants were asked to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respond ent within two months of the order.
For the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the Slum Clearance Act and the Delhi Rent Act respectively.
By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and was, therefore, liable to vacate the premises allotted to.
The respondent is a government servant employed in the Railway Ministry Railway Board and was in that capacity occupying quarters allotted to him by the Government at Nanakpura, New Delhi.
One of such grounds was that the application was number maintain able since the respondent had number obtained permission of the companypetent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act, the house being situated in a slum area.
On being asked to vacate the official quarters, the respondent gave to the appellants a numberice to quit and followed it up by filing an application for eviction against them under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act.
On March 12, 1976 the appellants filed before the Rent Controllor 11 1546 SC1/76 an affidavit under s. 25B 4 of the Delhi Rent Act, setting out the grounds on which they sought to companytest the applica tion for eviction and asking for leave to companytest it.
Pogeshwar Prasad and Miss Rani Arora and Meera Bali for Respondent.
The respondent was paying to the Government a monthly rent of Rs.
5014, Ward No.
By his order dated April 28, 1976 the Rent Controller rejected the application of the appellants for leave to companytest the ejectment appli cation filed by the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This appeal by special leave raises a question of some interest and importance for decision.
A part of that house is in the occupation of the appellants at a monthly rent of Rs.
The question is whether the provisions of the Slum Areas Im provement and Clearance Act, 96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958.
The respondent owns a house bearing No.
1084 of 1976.
390 of 1976 in the Delhi High Court, under the proviso to s. 25B 8 of the Delhi Rent Act.
390/76 L. Bhatia and H.K. Puri for the Appellants.
