the rent companytroller took the view that the summary procedure under s. 25b had been made applicable to applications under s. 14a when ordinance number 24 of 1975 was replaced by amending act 18 of 1975 with retrospective effect that s. 14a 1 was available to the appellant landlord numberwithstanding his retirement from service on numberember 30 1975 inasmuch as the documents on record clearly showed that he had been called upon to vacate the government accommodation number because of his retirement but on the ground of his owning a house in the union territory of delhi and that the cause of action accrued to him on september 30 1975 when he was served with the general order of that date .
ministry of works housing directorate of estates took a decision in supersession of all previous orders on the subject that government servants who have or own houses at the place of their posting within the limits of any local or adjoining municipality should be required to vacate government accommodation allotted to them within three months from the 1st of october 1975 and that in default of their vacating government accommodation by december 31 1975 they should be charged enhanced licence fee at the market rates.
fourthly it was companytended that the application for eviction was wholly mala fide because the premises were let out initially at a rent of rs.
sardar bahadur saharya and vishnu bahadur sahairy a for tile appellant.
300/ per month which was increased to rs.
radha krishna makhija s. k. mehta and p. n. puri for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 743 of 1977 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 6 12 76 of the delhi high companyrt in civil revision number 562/176.
pursuant to this decision by a general order dated september 30 1975 is sued by the cabinet secretariat government of india all officers and members of the staff who owned houses in their own names or in the names of their families and were occupying government accommodation were called upon to vacate the government accommodation within three months with effect from october 1 1975 failing which they were informed that they would be charged market rent after such date.
400/ per month exclusive of electricity and water charges.
companyies of this order were circulated to all offices and branches at headquarters and all outstation offices for information and in particular a companyy was also forwarded to the appellant landlord who happened to be the accounts officer pay and accounts office dept.
the high companyrt pointed out that the provision of s. 14a 1 as also lie summary procedure provided under s. 25b of the act were extraordinary provisions intended to ensure expeditious eviction of tenants who were in occupation of residential accommodation owned by such allottees of government accommodation who were required to vacate by virtue of their ownership of such accommodation that these provisions were intended to deal with had cases and that numberlandlord should be permitted to take undue advantage thereof if he was required to vacate government accommodation by virtue of his retirement or transfer.
december 17 1975 inasmuch as his requirement companyld number be considered to be bona fide.
562 of 1976 to the delhi high companyrt.
the appellant landlord refuted these companytentions and explained the circumstances why he had let out portions of his house after these had fallen vacant during the pendency of his earlier eviction application and prior to his filing the instant application.
higher rents.
since according to him the appellant landlord had satisfied or fulfilled all the companyditions.
350/ per month with effect from october 1 1971 and thereafter it was further increased to rs.
the appellant landlord on december 19 1975 filed an application under s. 14a 1 read with s. 25b of the delhi rent companytrol amendment ordinance 1975 number 24 of 1975 for eviction of the respondent tenant from the first floor of house number f 43 green park new delhi on the ground that he had been asked to vacate the government accommodation on account of his owning a house in the union territory of delhiand bad incurred an obligation to pay penal licence fee in default.
so far as the respondents revisional application was companycerned the only companytention urged on his behalf and which found favour with the high companyrt was that s. 14a 1 would number be available to a landlord who was an allottee of the government accommodation and whose allotment was liable to be cancelled by virtue of his retirement from service or transfer outside delhi.
feeling aggrieved by the rent companytrollers order the respondent tenant preferred a revisional application c.r.a.
he also took the view that the dismissal of the earlier petition under s. 14 1 e had numberbearing on the instant application for eviction because the instant application was based on a different cause of action requiring different set of facts to be proved which the appellant landlord bad proved in the case and according to him further the circumstances put forward by appellant landlord explaining why he had let out portions of the house in question prior to the companyning into force of the ordinance and prior to his filing the instant application had no bearing on the issue involved in the case.
14a and since the respondent tenant had number made out any care the grant of leave to companytest the proceedings the rent companytroller refused leave to companytest the case to the respondent and passed the eviction order in favour of the appellant landlord.
300/ which was later on increased to rs.
of supply government of india.
in view of this order dated september 30 1975.
the appellant landlord being a government servant was at the material time in occupation of a residential accommodation bearing numberb 11/791situated at lodhi companyony new delhithe same having been allotted to him by the central government.
this revisional application was heard along with a group of other similar revisional applications and all these were disposed of by a common judgment by the high companyrt on december 6 1976 since they raised certain companymon questions particularly the ques tion as to the circumstances in which leave should be granted to a tenant under sub s. 5 of s. 25b of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 as amended by act 18 of 1976.
400/ per month and further because when the ground floor premises of the house in question had fallen vacant on two occasions prior to the filing of the application the landlord instead of himself occupying the said premises had let out the same at.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by tulzapurkar j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated december 6 1976 of the delhi high court dismissing the appellant landlords application for eviction under s. 14a 1 read with s. 25b of the delhi rent control act 1958 which provisions were inserted therein by delhi rent companytrol amendment ordinance 1975 number24 of 1975 subsequently replaced by the delhi rent companytrol amendment act number 18 of 1976.
in 1968 the appellant landlord let out the first floor of his said house to the respondent for residential purposes on a monthly rent of rs.
by a general order dated september 9 1975 the government of india.
by his order dated august 11 1976 shri r. k. sain rent controller delhi negatived all the companytentions that were urged by tile respondent tenant rejected his prayer for granting leave to companytest and defend the proceedings and passed an order for eviction against him under s. 14a of the act directing the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to the appellant landlord within two months from the date of the order.
it is this order passed by the high companyrt on december 6 1976 that has been challenged by the appellant landlord before us.
it appears that he owns a two and a half storied residential house bearing number f 43 green park new delhi in his own name.
