Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
CM 13570/2005 in CM(M) 448/2002
1. For the reasons stated in the application the application is allowed and the petition is restored to its original number by recall of the order dated 16th September, 2005 dismissing the petition for non-prosecution.
CM(M) 448/2002 & CM 905/2002
2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b), (c), (d) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the petitioner/tenant. The respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to amend the petition to incorporate the relief of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. This amendment application, however, was not decided and the evidence of the landlord began. At that stage it was insisted that the application should be taken up and decided first. The application has been allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 24th July, 2002. This order is now sought to be impugned in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The substratum of the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in case of an application under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act a special procedure is prescribed as set out under Section 25B of the said Act for disposal of such an application and thus the ground of eviction of bona fide requirement cannot be clubbed with any other ground for seeking eviction of a tenant.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this behalf has referred to the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Shri R.K. Parikh v. Smt. Uma Verma 1978(2) RCR 275. It was held that no appeal lies to the Tribunal under Section 38 of the said Act as that would be contrary to the procedure prescribed in Chapter III A dealing with summary trial of certain applications and Section 25B forms a part of the said Chapter. It was observed that the said Chapter records intent of legislature for quicker pace of procedure in eviction cases based on bona fide requirement. Learned Counsel further referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Krishna Devi Nigam and Ors. v. Sham Babu Gupta etc. 1980(1) RCJ 493. It was held that the requirement of a prior permission under the Slum Areas(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Act) is not required for an eviction proceeding under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act as the special and specific purpose which motivated the enactment of Chapter III A of the said Act would be wholly frustrated if the provisions of the Slum Act requiring permission of the competent authority were to prevail over them.
5. Learned Counsel lastly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava 1984(1) RCJ 325. This judgment again dealt with the aspect of the requirement of prior permission under the Slum Act and held the same not applicable in case of a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. It was held that Section 14(1)(e) was distinct from the other grounds inasmuch as it fell within the protective umbrella of the new procedure in Chapter III A.
6. In my considered view there is no doubt about the proposition that the intent of the legislature in introducing Chapter III A by amendment of the said Act was to provide for a summary trial of certain applications. Thus in case of a bona fide requirement the special procedure was prescribed. Section 25B reads as under:
25B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona-fide requirement
(1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14A [or under Section 14B or under Section 14C or under Section 14D] shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.
(2) The controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in sub-section (1), in the form specified in the Third Schedule.
(3) (a) The controller shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain.
(b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served(whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.
(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 14A.
(6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 37, the Controller shall, while holding an inquiry in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence.
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Where no application has been made to the High Court on revision, the Controller may exercise the [powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order XLVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908)].
(10) Save as otherwise provided in this chapter, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14A, shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by Controllers.
7. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that the special procedure envisages a limited time period within which an application for leave to contest the eviction petition has to be filed by the tenant. Thus if no sufficient grounds are shown for grant of said leave an eviction order can follow on dismissal of such an application without going through the procedure of a trial. It is also provided that no appeal would lie against the said order with the result that a review petition is the remedy against an order of eviction passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act.
8. In the present case the landlord sought to add the ground of Section 14(1(e) subsequently. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that by the said amendment being incorporated in the existing petition the respondent really has given up the right of a summary adjudication with the result that it must be deemed that leave has been granted and the suit is at a stage where after trial the question would be decided whether the respondent/landlord is entitled to succeed in the eviction proceedings. If that be the position, in my considered view, the same cannot be faulted with as the respondent agrees not to avail of the summary procedure but agrees to go to trial like any other ground of eviction.
9. The only question which is really required to be considered is the consequence of a composite order which may be passed since no appeal would lie in respect of an order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act.
10. In order to appreciate the contention it has to be kept in mind that each of the grounds is separate and the ingredients are separate to satisfy the Additional Rent Controller that those ingredients are satisfied for an eviction order to follow. The Additional Rent Controller would thus be required to deal with each of the grounds separately and it is only the evidence which would be common. The result would be that to the extent the order deals with the aspect of bona fide requirement, the remedy of an aggrieved party would only be revision while in respect of remaining grounds an appeal would lie to the Tribunal.
11. It is also to be noticed that the trial court in terms of the impugned order has in fact observed that at the final decision stage the question would be considered as to whether one order can be passed or possibly two separate orders would be required to be passed in that behalf.
12. The petitioner can hardly have a grievance against the landlord not availing of the benefit of the summary procedure prescribed under Chapter III A except to the extent that the remedy of an aggrieved person in case of the petition under Section 14(1(e) of the said Act is to be in accordance with sub-Section 8 of Section 25B of the said Act.
13. The petition and the application accordingly stand disposed of.