http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Special Leave Petition (civil) 10641 of 1999

PETITIONER:

LIAQ AHMED & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/04/2000

BENCH:

S. Saghir Ahmad & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J.

Leave granted.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Rent control legilsations have been acknowledged to be

pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

balance between the rights of the landlord and the@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent the

landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the

tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This

Court in Mangat Ram vs. Kedar Nath [1980(4) SCC 276] held

that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified

protection to the tenant, the same should not be nullified

by giving a hyper-technical or liberal construction to the

language of the statute which instead of advancing the

object of the Act may result in its frustration. The Rent

Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the

tenants.

The history of the legislation regarding Rent Controls

in the country would show that the Rent Acts were enacted to

overcome the difficulties arising out of the scarcity of the

accommodation which arose primarily due to the growth of

industrialisation and commercialisation and inflow of the

population to the urban areas. Such legislations were

initially confined to the big cities like Bombay, Calcutta

and Rangoon but their jurisdiction was gradually extended to

other areas in the country. Because of scarcity of the

accommodation and gradual rise in the rents due to

appreciation of the value of urban properties, the landlords

were found to be in a position to exploit the situation for

their unjustified personal gains which were consequently

detrimental to the helpless tenants who were subjected to

uncalled for litigation for eviction. It thus became

imperative for the Legislature to intervene to protect the

tenants against harassment and exploitation by the landlords

for which appropriate legislations came to be passed by

almost all the States and Union Territories in the country

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

with the paramount object of essentially safeguarding the

interest of tenants and for their benefit. The Rent Acts

also made provision for safeguarding the interests of

genuine landlords. The Rent Acts are intended to preserve

social environment and promote social justice by

safeguarding the interests of the tenants mainly and at the

same time protecting the legitimate interests of the

landlords. The provisions of the Rent Acts are, therefore,

not required to be interpreted in a hyper-technical manner

which in cases may result in frustrating the object for

which the legislation was made. It should be kept in mind

that the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of the

tenants for whose benefits they were essentially passed.

The rational approach in interpreting the law relating to

the control of rents is expected from the courts dealing

with the cases under the statutes relating to rent by

keeping in mind the object of the legislation intended to

provide social justice preventing unscrupulous landlord to

exploit the circumstances and force the tenants to submit to

their pressure under the threat of eviction.

Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act") has also been enacted to provide for the control of

rents and evictions of the tenants from the premises covered

by the Act. Section 2(e) and (l) define 'landlord' and

'tenant' respectively. Section 14 provides protection to

the tenants against eviction. Eviction against a tenant can

be ordered by the Rent Controller only on the grounds

specified in various clauses and sub-sections of the said

Section. Section 14(A) to 14(D) confer rights upon the

landlord to recover immediate possession of premises on the

grounds mentioned therein. Section 15 specifies the

circumstances where the tenant can get protection against

his eviction. If the eviction of the tenant is sought under

Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, as was the prayer made by the

respondent herein, the tenant of the premises upon service

of the summons can pray to obtain leave from the Controller

to defend the case. Sub-section (5) of Section 25B

provides: "25B(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant

leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by

the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the

landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of

possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause

(e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, or

under Section 14-A."

From the scheme of the Act it is evident that if tenant

discloses grounds and pleads a cause which prima facie is

not baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is

obliged to grant him leave to defend his case against the

eviction sought by the landlord. The enquiry envisaged for

the purpose is a summary enquiry to prima facie find out the

existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the tenant. If

the tenant brings to the notice of the Controller, such

facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an

order for recovery of possession, the Controller shall give

him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of

facts and not the proof of the facts. In the instant case

the Controller as well as the High Court appear to have

completely ignored the object of the Rent Control

legislation and the scheme of the Act while dealing with the

case of the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

The facts in the present case are that the respondent

claiming to be the owner on the basis of a sale deed

executed in his favour on 25th November, 1991 registered on

27th November, 1991, filed a petition seeking eviction of

the appellants on the ground of his bonafide requirement as

contemplated under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of

the Act. The claim of the landlord was resisted by the

appellants on the ground that the property, the subject

matter of litigation, is vested in the Custodian of Enemy

Properties for India which could not be alienated or sold to

the respondent-landlord. Reliance was placed on Section 18

of the Enemy Properties Act, 1968. It was further pleaded

that under Section 19 of the said Act the Rent Controller

had no jurisdiction. The appellants further submitted that

the sale deed in favour of the respondent was not legal and

genuine as the same was allegedly made by persons who had

become Pakistani nationals and had thus legally forfeited

their title, rights and interests in the property. The

appellants further pleaded that they had become owner of the

property by adverse possession.

Appearing for the appellants Shri Bargi, learned

Advocate has submitted that his clients forego their claim

of being the owners of the property by adverse possession

and restrict their claim to be the tenants thereof having a

right to resist the claim of the respondent and to remain in

possession of the property in accordance with the provisions

of law applicable in the case.

In support of their case the appellants had relied upon

Annexure P-1 which was an intimation by the Custodian of

Enemy Properties for India to the grandfather of the

appellants to the effect that the property had vested in the

custodian of enemy properties for India. The aforesaid

communication read as under:

"With reference to your letter dated 30.9.70 I have to

state that the above premises vests in the Custodian of

Enemy Property for India. The Tehsildar, Tis Hazari, Delhi

has been authorised by the Custodian to collect rent in

respect of the premises. You are, therefore, requested to

pay the rent to the above mentioned Tehsildar against his

official receipt under intimation to this office." The Rent

Controller negatived the plea of the appellants by taking

into consideration order dated 30th March, 1954 passed by

the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) in relation to the

premises whereby property No.1761 situated at Ward No.XIX,

Delhi had declared as non evacuee property. It appears that

the Rent Controller failed to see the distinction between

the Evacuee Property Act under which the order dated 30th

March, 1954 was passed and the Enemy Property Act, 1968

regarding which letter Exhibit P-1 dated 15th October, 1970

was issued intimating that the property, the subject matter

of the litigation, had vested in the Custodian of Enemy

Properties for India. The question as to whether the

property had actually vested or not, the consequence of its

vesting or non-vesting and the authenticity of the sale deed

relied upon by the respondent, were the questions which

could be determined only at the trial after the appellants

were granted leave to contest the claim of the

respondent-landlord. The pleas raised by the appellants

could not, in any way, be termed to be frivolous, baseless,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

unreal and unfounded. If that be the position, the

Controller was obliged to grant the leave and after

affording the parties opportunity, adjudicate the rival

claims. Thus the orders of the Rent Controller and that of

the High Court suffers from inherent legal infirmities which

are required to be set aside.

Under the circumstances the appeal is allowed by setting

aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.10.1997 and

that of the High Court dated 16.4.1999, impugned in this

appeal. The appellants herein are granted leave to defend

the eviction petition in terms of the provisions of the Act.

The Rent Controller is, however, directed to expedite the

disposal of the petition filed by the respondent-landlord

after affording the parties reasonable opportunity of

proving their cases. No costs.