S.N. Kotvala Vs. Prem Saral - Court Judgment

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the Order dated February 21, 1998 passed by Ms. R. Kiran Nath, Rent Controller Delhi. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/tenant on the ground that the petitioner was an employee in Delhi Vidyut Board and was due to retire w.e.f. April 30, 1998. The learned Judge has interpreted the provisions of Section 14C of the Act and held that the petitioner cannot be said to be an employee of Delhi Administration as he was an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board and, consequently rejected the petition. Section 14C of the Act reads as under :

'14C. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to Central Government and Delhi Administration employees.

(1) Where the landlord is a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration, and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence, such employee may, within one year from the date of his retirement of within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 whichever is later apply, to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises.

(2) Where the landlord is an employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by him are required by him for his own residence after his retirement, he may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of his retirement, apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises.

(3) Where the landlord referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub- section (2) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that sub-section in respect of only one of the premises chosen by him.'

2. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed a Junior Clerk with Delhi Vidyut Board w.e.f. March 21, 1961. The said organisation though is an independent body is in close proximity with Delhi Administration inasmuch as some of the employees working in Delhi Administration are posted in Delhi Vidyut Board as well as in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and vice versa. The learned Rent Controller could not have taken the view that retired employees of such Bodies cannot have the benefit of provisions of Section 14C of the Act. This is prima facie against the spirit of the Statute and will lead to anamolous situation. It is not the intention of law that the benefit of the provisions of Section 14C of the Act will apply to retired employees either of the Central Government or Delhi Administration and the employees of other Governmental and Statutory Bodies which are not directly part of Central Government or Delhi Administration cannot take recourse to Section 14C of the Act. The view taken by the Rent Controller is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. This will also amount to a very narrow interpretation of the provisions which are meant to give re-dress to retiring employees of the Government including those working in Organisations such as Delhi Vidyut Board. This Court in a judgment reported as Sh. S.C. Chawla Vs . Sh. Harbans Lal Khullar, : AIR1994Delhi63 , has considered the case of an employee of Railway Board with regard to protection under Section 14C of the Act. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment which deal with the definition of Central Government employee may be reproduced as follows:

'8. The word 'Central Government Employee' has not been defined under the Act. As per the General Clauses Act, 1897, 'Central Government' shall.

(b) in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution mean the President; and shall include,

(i) in relation to functions entrusted under Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution to the Government of a State, the State Government acting within the scope of the authority given to it under that clause;

(ii) in relation to the administration of a Part C State the commencement of the Constitution, the Chief Commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor or the Government of a neighbouring State or other authority acting within the scope of the authority given to him or it under Article 239 or Article 243 of the Constitution as the case may be;

(iii) in relation to the administration of a Union Territory the Administrator thereof acting within the scope of the authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution.'

9. Even according to this provision, the authority given to the Central Government is to be exercised by the President, and when this authority is so exercised by him or by any other authority permitted to do so under the rule of business, the action in any such case must purport to have been taken in the name of the President. The Central Government is not an individual but an organisation, whether a function is exercised by the President as the Head of the Union of India or whether a power is vested by the Constitution on the President as such as a person a designate, the procedure for the exercise of power would be the same, namely, either the one prescribed by the rule of business or under the law and the rules made thereunder. The Indian Railway, as such, is nothing but a part of the Central Government and is covered under the definition of organisation. If the Central Government is an organisation then Railway is a part of the same. As per the rule of business, powers have been delegated to the Railway Board but ultimate powers of the Railway Board vests with the Railway Ministry which is a part of the Central Government. thereforee, we cannot think Railway to be something different or de hors of the Railway Ministry or de hors the Central Government.

10. The analogy that the Railway administration is a part of the Central Government can also be drawn from the provision of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribes that; no suit can be instituted against the Government unless the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of-

'(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, (except where it relates to a Railway), a Secretary to that Government;

(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a Railway, the General Manager of that Railway;'

3. The Delhi Vidyut Board is a Body Corporate as will be indicative from the reading of the provisions of Delhi Vidyut Board Rules, 1997. The Constitution and composition, term of office and conditions of re-appointment of Members of the Board and appointment of Secretary are defined in Rules 3, 4 and 5. The approval of the Government for such appointments is required. Sub-clause (viii) of Rule 2 which contains the definition reads as follows:

'2(viii). 'Government' means the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.'

4. In view of the above it cannot be said that the employees of Delhi Vidyut Board (earlier known as DESU) are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 14C of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the said provision of law. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The Rent Controller shall proceed in the matter on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on September 14, 1998 for further proceedings in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.