# \ / SARWAN SINGH & ANR v. KASTURI LAL

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 421
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-12-14
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sarwan-singh-anr-v-kasturi-lal-7053
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

\
/
SARWAN SINGH & ANR.
v.
KASTURI LAL
December 14, 1976
fY. V. CHANDRACHUD, P.K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA
FAZAL Au JJ.]
421
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956- Ss. 19 and 39Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Ss. 14A, 25A, 25B-scope of.
Interpretation-Two or more laws in the same field--Conflict-How resolved.
A
B
Section 19 of the Slum Areas (lmprovement and Clearance) Act 1956 proC
vides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw for the bime
being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing
of the competent authority, institute any suit or proceeding for obtaining any
decree or order for the eviction of a tenant· from any building in a slum area.
Section 39 enacts that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith· contamed in any other law.
Section 14A
and Chapter IIIA called "Summary Trial of certam applications" containing
ss. 25A, 25B and 250 were introduced into' the Delhi Rent Control Act with
effect from December 1, 1975. Section 14A provides that where the landlord
D
who, being in occupation of res1denual premises allotted to him by the Central
Government, was reqmred to vacate such residential accommodation on
the
ground that he owns residential accommodation within the Union Territory,
there shall accrue to such landlord, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Act or any other law for the time being in force, a nght to recover immediately
possession of any premises let out by him.
Section 25A provides (i) that the
provisions of Chapter IHA shall have an over-riding effect over every other
provision of the Delhi Rent Act which is inconsistent with anything containE
ed in Chapter IIIA and (ii) that the provisions of Chapter IIIA shall
have
over-nding effect over anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other
Jaw.
Section 25-B prescribes special procedure for the disposal of applications
for eviction.
Section 54 provides· that nothing in the Act shall affect the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.
The respondent who was allotted government quarters in New Delhi was
called upon by the Government to vacate the ·quarters on the ground that he
owned a residential house in Delhi.
Since he did not vacate the quarters before
F
the time given he was asked to pay a high penal rent.
His application undec
s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviCtion of the appellants, who were
the tenants of the premises, was contested by them on the ground that since
the house had been situated in a slum area, the respondent was not entitled to
possession because he had not obtained permission of the competent authority
under s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act. This plea was i:ejected.
Their revision application was reiected by the High Court.
In appeal it was contended that the Slum Clearance Act being a special
G
Act its provisions must have precedence over the provisions of the Delhi Rent
Act and to deny precedence to the former Act in matters arising
out
of
s. l 4A and Chapt~r IlIA was to repeal that Act by implication.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : The provisions· of s. 14A ru:id Chapter IIIA of the
Rent Control
Act must prevail over those contained in ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance
H
Act. f434 Gl
1 (a) By virtue of the first part of s. 25A, the provisions of Chapter IlIA
must prevail over the provisions of s. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act.
To the extent
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
A
to. which s. 54. saves the operation of the Slum Clearance Act, it is inconsistent
with. the J?roVISlons ~f Chapter IIIA which prescribes a special procedure for
deahng wJth apphcahons for eviction filed under cl. (e) of the proviso
to
s. 14(1) or under s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Act [430 F]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
( b) By virtue. of the second part of s. 25A also the provisions of Chapter
IIIA would prevail over those of the Slum Clearance Act.
Sections 19 and 39
of the Slum Clearance Act are to that extent inconsisten

## Text

_Characters 0–38,912 of 44,886. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38912 for what follows._

\
/
SARWAN SINGH & ANR.
v.
KASTURI LAL
December 14, 1976
fY. V. CHANDRACHUD, P.K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA
FAZAL Au JJ.]
421
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956- Ss. 19 and 39Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Ss. 14A, 25A, 25B-scope of.
Interpretation-Two or more laws in the same field--Conflict-How resolved.
A
B
Section 19 of the Slum Areas (lmprovement and Clearance) Act 1956 proC
vides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other Jaw for the bime
being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing
of the competent authority, institute any suit or proceeding for obtaining any
decree or order for the eviction of a tenant· from any building in a slum area.
Section 39 enacts that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith· contamed in any other law.
Section 14A
and Chapter IIIA called "Summary Trial of certam applications" containing
ss. 25A, 25B and 250 were introduced into' the Delhi Rent Control Act with
effect from December 1, 1975. Section 14A provides that where the landlord
D
who, being in occupation of res1denual premises allotted to him by the Central
Government, was reqmred to vacate such residential accommodation on
the
ground that he owns residential accommodation within the Union Territory,
there shall accrue to such landlord, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Act or any other law for the time being in force, a nght to recover immediately
possession of any premises let out by him.
Section 25A provides (i) that the
provisions of Chapter IHA shall have an over-riding effect over every other
provision of the Delhi Rent Act which is inconsistent with anything containE
ed in Chapter IIIA and (ii) that the provisions of Chapter IIIA shall
have
over-nding effect over anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other
Jaw.
Section 25-B prescribes special procedure for the disposal of applications
for eviction.
Section 54 provides· that nothing in the Act shall affect the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.
The respondent who was allotted government quarters in New Delhi was
called upon by the Government to vacate the ·quarters on the ground that he
owned a residential house in Delhi.
Since he did not vacate the quarters before
F
the time given he was asked to pay a high penal rent.
His application undec
s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviCtion of the appellants, who were
the tenants of the premises, was contested by them on the ground that since
the house had been situated in a slum area, the respondent was not entitled to
possession because he had not obtained permission of the competent authority
under s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act. This plea was i:ejected.
Their revision application was reiected by the High Court.
In appeal it was contended that the Slum Clearance Act being a special
G
Act its provisions must have precedence over the provisions of the Delhi Rent
Act and to deny precedence to the former Act in matters arising
out
of
s. l 4A and Chapt~r IlIA was to repeal that Act by implication.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : The provisions· of s. 14A ru:id Chapter IIIA of the
Rent Control
Act must prevail over those contained in ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance
H
Act. f434 Gl
1 (a) By virtue of the first part of s. 25A, the provisions of Chapter IlIA
must prevail over the provisions of s. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act.
To the extent
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
A
to. which s. 54. saves the operation of the Slum Clearance Act, it is inconsistent
with. the J?roVISlons ~f Chapter IIIA which prescribes a special procedure for
deahng wJth apphcahons for eviction filed under cl. (e) of the proviso
to
s. 14(1) or under s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Act [430 F]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
( b) By virtue. of the second part of s. 25A also the provisions of Chapter
IIIA would prevail over those of the Slum Clearance Act.
Sections 19 and 39
of the Slum Clearance Act are to that extent inconsistent with the procedure
prescribed by Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act and have to be subordinated
to it. [ 430 G]
2(a) The object of s. 14A 1s to confer a right on certain landlords to recover
"immediate possession of premises" belonging to them and which are in
the
possession of their tenants. Such a right is ''to accrue" to a class of persons.
The same c.oncept i~ clari~ed by providing that in the contingencies mentioned
m the secuon, a nght will accrue to the landlord "to recover immediately
possession of any premises, let out by him." [430 HJ
(b) The provisions of s. 14A must prevaif over anything contained elsewhere. in the Delhi .Rent Act or in the Slum Clearance Act. Section 25B(l)
prescribes that the nght conferred by s. 14A has to be enforced in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by Chapter IHA. Section 25A gives an overriding effecti to the provisions of Chapter IIIA. [431 El
3(a) The Legislature has expressed its intention clearly and uneqmvocally
that the provisions of s. 14A and Chapter' IIIA would have precedence over
anything else contained in that Act or in any other law. The object of
the
Legislature in incorporating the non-obstante clause both in s. 14A and s. 25A
of the Delhi Rent Act was to free the proceedings arising out of the right
newly conferred by s. 14A and falling within Chapter IIIA from the restraint
imposed by s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act and from the operation of s. 39
thereof. To subject that facility to the provision of the Slum Clearance Act
would be to make illusory the right conferred by s. 14A on the allottee to
obtain "immediate possession" of the premises let out by him to his
tenant.
[432D & 431FJ
(b) While s. 25 A gives an overriding effect to the provisions of
Chapter
IHA over anything "inconsistent therewith" contained elsewhere in the Delhi
Rent Act or in any other law, s. 14A does not qualify the over-riding effect
of what is contained therein i.e. in s. 14A in reference to anything inconsistent
therewith contained either in the Delhi Rent Act or in <1nY other law. The
word 'anything' occurring in "notwithstanding anything contained" elsewhere in
the Delhi Rent Act would ordinarily
mean "anything to the contrary".
[432B-CJ
(c) In order that the object of s. 14A may not be frustrated, s. 25C provides that nothing contained in s. 14(6) shall apply to a landlord who is
in
possession of the premises allotted. to .him by the Cei:itral Gov~rnment and
who is required to vacate that residential
accommodat10n.
Section
25C(2)
reduces the period of .six months prescribed .under s. 11(7) for recove!'Y
of
possession of the premises to two mon!hs whic~ emp~asise~ that the ob1ect of
the Legislature is to confer real, effective and immediate nght on a class
of
landlords to obtain possession of premises let out by them to their tenants.
[432F-H]
( 4) To afford a quick and expeditious re,medy against the tenant th_e Act
provided that nothing, not even the Slum Clearance Act, ~hall stand m the
way of an allottee of Government accommodation from evicting his tenant by
resorting to the summary procedure prescrib~d by <;:hapt~r IIIA.
The tenant
is deprived c\f the right to defend a proceedmg agamst him and .to. al?p~al or
second appeal lies agaii:is~ th~ or.der of the Re!'t Controller. The 1unsdict1on of
the High Court in reVIsion 1s limited to finding out whether the order complained of is according to law.
[433A-B]
·( 5 (a) When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains
a non-obstante clause, cases of conflict hav,e to )>e decided in. reference to the
~
object and purpose of the law under consideration.
In the mstant case, the
,,
\
t
-..
/
\
~
-
-
~- ..
-i------·
SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.)
423
special and specific purpose which motivated the enactment of s. 14A
am!
A
Chapter IHA would be frustrated if the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act
were to prevail over them.
Therefore, the newly introduced provisions of the
Delhi Rent Act must hold the field and b.e given full effect despite anything to
the country contained in the Slum Clearance Act.
(433 D & G]
Sri Ram Narain v. Tlze Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd. [1956] S.C.R.
603 followed.
(b) Yet another test is that the later enactment must prevail. over the earlier
one. Section 14A and Chapter IHA having been enacted with
effect
from
December 1, 197S are later enactments in reference to s. 19 of the
Slum
Clearance Act which was placed on the statute book with effect from February
28, 1965 and i):i reference to s. 39 ot the same Act whicb came into force in
1956 when the Act was passed. The Legislature gave
overriding effect to
"· 14-A and Chapter IIIA with the knowledge that ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum
Clearance Act contained non-obstante clauses of equal efficacy.
[434A-BJ
CivrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1084 of 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
6th September, 1976 of the Delhi High Court in C. R. No. 390/76
S. L. Bhatia and H. K. Puri for the Appellants.
Pogeshwar Prasad and (Miss) Rani Arora and Meera Bali for
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.
The question is whether
the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1953.
If they do, no person can institute any suit or proceeding for the
eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area without
the previous permission in writing of the competent authority.
For
the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the "Slum
Clearance Act" and the "Delhi Rent Act" respectively.
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.
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 him by the Government.
The respondent was paying to the Government a monthly rent of
Rs. 65.05 but since he did not vacate the premises as required, the
Government started charging him after January 1, 1976 a monthly
rent of Rs. 509.50 at the market rate.
The respondent ·owns a house bearing No. 5014, Ward No. XII,
B
c
D
E
F
G
at Roshanara Road, New Delhi.
A part of that house is in the occupation of the appellant~ at a monthly rent of Rs. 6.25.
On being
asked to vacate the official quarters, the respondent gave to the
H
appellants a notice 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 SCI/76
A
B
c
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2.S.C.R.
an affidavit under s. 25B( 4) of the Delhi Rent Act, setting out the
grounds on which they sought to contest the application for ev .ction
and asking for leave to contest it.
One of such grounds was that the
application was not maintainable since the respondent had not obtained
permission of the competent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act, the house being situated in a slum area. By his order d•ated
April 28, 1976 the Rent Controller rejected the application of the
appellants for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the
respondent.
As a sequiter, the Rent Controller passed an order on
the same date stating that since the appellants' application for leave
to contest the ejectment application was rejected,
respondent was
entitled to a decree for eviction.
The appellants were asked to hand
over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two
months of the order.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants filed
Civil
Revision Application No. 390 of 1976 in the Delhi
High
Court,
under the proviso to s. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Act.
By reason
of s. 25B(8), no appeal or second appeal lies against an order for
the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Rent ConD
troller in accordance with the procedure specified in s. 25B.
The
proviso confers 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.
The revision application wai;
heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who, following
his own earlier• judgment in Civil Revision Application No. 280 of
E
1976, dismissed it, giving rise to this appeal.
F
G
H
A question was raised before the High Court as to whether at the
relevant time the respondent was in occupation
of the
premise~
allotted to him by the Government, but it was not 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.
Thus, the only question which arises before us is whether,
·~the premises being situated in the slum area, the application for eviction filed by the respondent is not maintainable for the reason tha.t
before filing it he had not obtained permission of the competent
authority as required by s. 19 (1) of the Slum Clearance Act.
The landlord-tenant relationship in Delhi. was governed formerly
by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 38 of 1952. That Act
in so far as it applied to the Union territory of Delhi, was repealed
by s. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. This latter
Act was passed in order to provide a suitable
machinery for
expeditious adiudication of proceedings between landlords and tenants·
to provi~e for the determination of standard rent payable by tenants;
and to give to the tenants a large measure of
protection aP-ainst
eviction.
Section 14 of the Act of 1958 affords to tenants substantially the same measure of protection which was available to them
under section 13 of the Act of 1952.
/ '
_...... _ _.._
.-
.SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.)
425
While the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act of 1952 was in
!force the Parliament enacted the· Slum Areas
(Improvement and
Clear~nce) Act 96 of 1956, in order "to provide for the improvement and clear~nce of slum areas in certain Union territories" inclu-
·ding Delhi, and "for the protection of tenants in such
areas from
eviction".
Section 19 ( 1) of that Act, as originally enacted, made
.all decrees and orders for
eviction of tenants in slum areas
unexecutable, except with the previous permission in writing of t~e
competent authority.
The vires of section 19 was
challanged
m
Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union territory of Delhi(')
on the ground that it violated articles 14
and
19 ( 1) ( f)
of the
Constitution.
The challenge was repelled by this Court on the ground
that section 19 did not offend against the equal protection of laws
guaranteed by art. 14, that section 19(1) gave enough guidance to
the competent authority in the use of his discretion and that the
restrictions imposed by section 19 could not be said to be unreason-
.able.
Adverting to the non-obstante clauses in secs.
19 ( 1) . and
.39 of the Slum Clearance Act and in sec. 38 of the Delhi and Ajmer
Rent Control Act 1952, the Court observed that the provisions of
the former Act must, in respect of buildings in slum areas, operate
in addition to the provisions of the latter Act.
Section 19 (1) of the Slum Clearance Act was amended by Act
43 of 1964 which came into force on February 28, 1965.
Whereas
under the unamended provision no person could execute any decree
or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum
area without the previous permission in writing of the competent
authority, under the amended provisim1 no person can, except with
such permission, institute after the amendment any suit or proceeding
for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from
any building or land in a slum area. If such a decree or order was
obtained before the amendment it cannot be executed without the
requisite permission.
For a proper appreciation of the question involved in this appeal,
it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the two Acts under
consideration.
We will refer first to the provisions of
the Slum
Clearance Act and then to those of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The
former Act beiμg of the year 1956 is anterior in point of time to
the latter which was passed in 1958 but .the more decisive provisions
of the latter Act with which we are directly concerned in this appeal
were incorporated in that Act in 1976.
The relevant provisions of the Slum Clearance Act are these :
"S. 19. Proceedings for eviction of tenants not to be
taken without permission of the competent authority.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, no person shall, except with
the
previous permission in writing of the competent authority,-
( a) institute, after the commencement of the
Slum
Areas (Improvement and
Clearance)
Amendment Act '
(!) (1962] 2 S.C.R. 125.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
426
A
I
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 2 S.C.R.
1964, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or
order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land
in a slum area; or
(b) Where any decree or order is obtained in any suit
or proceeding instituted before such commencement for thf:
eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area,
execute such decree or order.
(2) Every person desiring to obtain the permission
referred to in sub-section ( 1) shall make an application
in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of such
application,
the
competent
authority, after giving an opportunity to the
parties
of
being heard and after making such summary inquiry into
the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order
in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission.
( 4) In granting or refusing to grant
the
permission
under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take
D
into account the following factors, namely :-
(a) whether
alternative
accommodation
within
the
means of the tenant would be available to him if
he were evicted;
(b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improveE
ment and clearance of the slum areas;
F
G
II
( c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed.
(5) where the competent authority refuses to grant the
permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons
for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant."
"S. 39. Act to override other laws.-The prov1s10ns
of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in any other law."
Having noticed the releyant provisions of the Slum Clearance
Act we must refer to the following provisions of the
Delhi Rent
Act:
"S. 14(1) Notwithstanding anything to
the contrary
contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree
for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made
by 11ny court or Controller in favour of the landlord against
a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an
application
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for
\
'--"•
SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, l.)
.(27
the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more
-0f the following grounds only, namely:-
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are
required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a
residence for himself or for any member of his family
dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for -any
person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the
landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitabl•
. residential accommodation;
( 6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by
transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of
A
B
such premises shall lie under sub-section ( 1) on the ground
c
specified in clause ( e) of the proviso thereto,
unless
a
period of five years has elapsed from the date of the
.acquisition.
(7) Where an order for the recovery of possession of any
prell)ises is made on the ground specified in clause (e)
of
the proviso to sub-section ( 1)
the landlord_ shall not be
entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration 0f
'a period of six months from the date of the order."
·"s. 14A. Right to recover immediate possession of premises
to accrue to certain persons.-( 1) Where a landlord who,
being a person in occupation of any residential premises
·allotted to him by the Central Government or any local autho- .
rity is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special
order made by that Government or authority, to vacate such
·residential accommodation, or in default, · to incur certain
obligations,
on the ground that he owns, ill the Union
territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his
·own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child,
there shall accrue, on and from the date of such
order, to such landlord, -notwithstanding anything oontained
elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time bem,11; •
.--- in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately
possession of any premises kt out by him: .... "
D
E.
. ·"S.25A. Provisions of this Chapter to have
overridin1
G
effect.- The provisions of this Chaptei: or any rule made
·thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anytl1ing incoii-
. sistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in aiy
other law'.for the time being in force."
"'25B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for
eviction.--(1) Every application by a landlord for the
H
-recovery of possession of any premises on the ground speci-
'fied in clause ( e) of the proviso to sub-section ( 1) of section
- - -
~--- -----
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.1'.
A
14, or under section 14A, shall be dealt with in accordance
with the procedure specified in this section.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
( 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 .... "
"25C. Act to have effect in a modified form in relation to
certain persons.-(1) Nothing contained in sub-section (6)
of section 14 shall apply to a landlord who, being a person in
occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the
Central Government or any local authority is required by, ar
in pursuance of, an order made by that Government or
authority to vacate such residential accommodation,
or, in
default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he
owns a residential. accommodation either in his own name or
in the name of his wi;fe or dependent child in the llnion territory of Delhi.
(2)
In the case of a landlord who, being a person of the
category specified in sub-section ( 1) , has obtained, on the
ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section
(1) of section 14, or under section 14A, an order for the
eviction of a tenant from any premises, the provisions of subsection (7) of section 14 shall have effect as if for the words
"six months" occurring therein, the words "two months" were
substituted".
"S. 54. Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions.
of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, or
the Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance)
Act,.
\
-
....
SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.)
-42!')
1956, or the Delhi Tenants' (Temporary Protection)
Act,
A
1956.''
Sections 14A, 25A, 25B, and 25C were introduced into the Delhi
Rent Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which came into force on ~cem
ber 1,, 1975.
The Ordinance was later replaced by the Delhi Rent
Control (Amendment) Act, 18 of 1976, which was given effect from
the date of the ordinance.
Sections 25A, 25B and 25C are contained
in a newly introduced chapter, IIIA, called "Summary Trial of Certain Applications".
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised
the following points : (1) Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act does
nothing more than to confer a right on a class of landlords to sue for
eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, which right was not
available to that class under clause ( e) of the proviso to s. 14 of that
Act.
A person occupying premises allotted to him by the Government coul~ not before the enactment of s. 14A evict his own tenant
because, s,o long as
he was in possession of the accommodation
allotted to him by the Government he could not satisfy the requirement of clause (e) that he should have no other reasonably suitable
residential accommodation;
(2)
Since s. 14A merely furnishes one
more cause of action in addition ~o the existing ones for which a
fandlord can obtain po!>Session o~, the premises let out by him, there
is no reason why the application of the Slum Clearance Act should be
excluded in regard to proceedings arising out of the right conferred by
s. 14A, particularly when the right conferred by the various clauses of
the proviso to.fl. 14(1) is plainly subject to the provisions of the Slum
Clearance Act; (3) Section 54 of the Delhi Rent Act expressly saves
the operation of the Slum Clearance Act and since s. 14A is
incorporated into the Delhi Rent Act, the Slum Clearance Act would! prevail
over it; ( 4) In view of the non-obstante clauses contained in ss. 19 and
39 of the Slum Clearance Act and s. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act, every
proceeding for eviction of a tenant under the Delhi Rent Act is, subject
to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act; ( 5) The Slum Clearance
Act being a special act, the object of which is to afford an additional
protection to tenants residing in slum areas, its provisions must have
precedence over the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act which is in the
nature of a general enactment governing the landlord-tenant relationship.
The Slum Clearance Act applies only to notified localities in
Delhi while the Delhi Rent Act is of general application to the entire
territory of Delhi; ( 6) If it were intended that despite the provisions of
11. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act, proceedings arising out of a right conferred
by ~. 14A should not be subordinated to the provisions of the Slum
Clearance Act, nothing would have been easier for the legislature
than to provide ins. 14A itself or in the newly introduced Chapter IITA
that to such proceedings the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act
would have no application; and (7) To deny precedence to the Slum
Clearance Act over the Delhi Rent Act in matters arising out of s. 14A
or Chapter IIIA is to repeal the former Act by implication, pro tanto.
Law difilavonrs the doctrine of implied repeal.
B
c
D
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977J 2 S.C.R.
· Having considered these submissions carefully we are unable
to
accept any one of them.
It would not be conducive to an adequate
exposition or a proper understanding of the issues involved in the case
to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants seriatim.
The points raised by the appellants' counsel are interdependent and
since they depend for their validity on the thesis that the Slum Clearance Act must in any event have precedence over the Delhi Rent Act
in all matters arising under the latter Act, it would be helpful to deal
straightaway with that contention.
Section 14A, and Chapter IHA containing ss. 25A, 25B and 25C,
were introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975
which was later replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment)
Act, 18 of 1976.
The amending Act was glven effect from the date
on which the ordinance was published, namely, from December. 1,
1975.
By s. 25B every application by a landlord for the recovery of
possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause ( e) of the
proviso to s. 14(1) or under s. 14A has be dealt with in accordance
with the procedure specified in the section. Section 25A, which is the first
of the collocation of sections appearing in Chapter IHA, provides that
the provisions of that Chapter or any rule made tjiereunder shall have
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time r·eing in
force.
The marginal note to s. 25A reads : "provisions of this Chapter to have overriding effect."
Section 25A may for convenience be
split up irito two parts, ignoring for the present purpose the reference to
rules made under Chapter IHA. In the first place, that section provides that the provisions of Chapter JIIA containing ss. 25A, 25B and
25C shall have an overriding effect over every other provision of the
Delhi Rent Act which is inconsistent with anything contained in Chapter IIIA.
Secondly, s. 25A provides that the provisions of Chapter
IIIA shall also have overriding effect over anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is patent
that by virtue of the first part of s. 25A, the provisions of Chapter IHA
must prevail over the provisions of s'. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act.
The
reason is that to the exten~ to which s. 54 saves the operation of the
Slum Clearance Act, it is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter
IIIA which prescribes a special procedure for dealing with applications
for eviction filed under clause (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1) or under
s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Act. It is equally clear that by reason of
the second part of s. 25A also, the provisions of Chapter IIIA would
prevail over those of the Slum Clearance Act.
The reason
is that the relevant provisions
of
that
Act
devise
an
over
riding
procedure
by reason of which no suit or proceeding can /
be instituted without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority.
Sections 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act. are
t
to that extent inconsistent with the procedure prescribed by Chapter
IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act and have to be subordinated to it.
H
The object of s. 14A, as shown by its marginal note, is to confer
a right on certain landlords to recover "immediate possession of premises" belonging to them and which are in the possession of their
\
-
,-4
/
\
~
. ..., ..
SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, .T.)
431
-tenants.
In the significant language of the_ marginal note., s1:1ch a right
is "to accrue" to a class of persons.
The same concept is yursu~
and clarified in the body of s. 14A by prnviding that in the contmgenc1es
mentioned in the section, a right will acc~·ue to the landl~rd,, "to recover inunediately possession of any premises let out by him ;,. The
argument which was presented to us on the use of the word ·1mme-
.diately" in the body of s. 14A has thus no substance.
The right conferred by s. 14A has to be enforced in. accordance
-with the procedure prescribed by Chapter IHA.
That 1s the. prescription of s. 25B (1).
In order expressly to exclude the operat1?1:1 of
.all provisions inconsistent with Chapter IIIA whether such prov1s1<;>ns
are contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law like
the Slum Clearance Act, s. 25A was put on the statute book.
That
section gives an over-riding effect to the provisions of Chapter IHA.
.But the legislature did not rest content by providing merely that the
procedural provisions contained in Chapter IIIA would have such
.over-riding effect.
It took the precaution of making an additional
provision in s. 14A itself that on and from the date of the order passed
by the Central Government or any local authority c:illing upon a person to vacate the residential accommodation allotted to him, there shall
accrue to such person a right to recover immediately the possession of
any premises let out by him, "notwithstanding anything contained
elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or
in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the
contrary .... " The provisions of s. 14A must, therefore, prevail over
11nythinJ?i contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in the Slum
C1earance Act.
In December 197 5 when Ordinance 24 of 197 5 was promulgated
and later when the ordinance was replaced by Act 18 of 1976 the
legislature was cognisant that by reason of the provisions co!'ltained
in s. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act and further by reason of those contained in ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act, this latter Act
would prevail over all other laws.
As a result, no proceeding could
be instituted for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a
tenant from any building or land in a 5lum area nor could any decree
or order be executed against the tenant of any such building or land,
without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority.
'The object of the legislature in incorporating the 11011-obstante clause
both in ss. 14A and 25A of the Delhi Rent Act was to free the pro-
.ceedings arising out of the right newly conferred by s. 14A and falling
within Chapter IIIA, from the restraint imposed by s. 19 of the Slum
Clearance Act and from the operation of s. 39 thereof. The reason
·for releasing such proceedings from the pre-condition imposed by the
Slum Clearance Act is that if the Government or the local authority
asks a person to vacate the premises allotted to him by it on the
ground that he owns a residential accommodation in his own name or
in the name of his wife or dependent child, a provision ought to be
·made to enable such a person to obtain immediately the possession
-of his own house if it be in the occupation of a tenant.
To subject
-this facility to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act, imder which
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
{)
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 2 S.C.Rr
the c?mpetent authority _can ~rant the requisite permission only by
appl;:mg the tests prescnbed m s. 19 ( 4), would be to make illusory
the nght conferred by s. 14A on the a!lottee
to
obtain "immediate
P?Ssession" ?f the pre~ises let out by him to his tenant. It is with a.
view to making that nght truly effective that the legislature iave it
precedence over anything inconsistent therewith contained
in
the
De~hi Rent Act itself or in any other Act like the Slum Clearance Act,.
It JS. ~oteworthy that whereas s. 25A gives an overriding effect to the
provlS!ons of Chapter IHA over anything
"inconsistent
therewith"
c?ntain~d el~ewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the
time ~emg m. force, s. _14A does not qualify the overriding effect of
what 1s contamed therem, that is in is. 14A, in reference to anything
"inconsistent" therewith contained either in the Delhi Rent Act itself
or in any other law.
Section 14A provides that there shall accrue a
right to the lanlord to recover immediately possession of any premises.
let out by him notwithstanding "anything" contained elsewhere in th;)
Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time being in force.
In
the context, the word "anything'' would ordinarily mean "anything to
the contrary'', but the point of the matter is that the legislature
hru;
expre5sed its intention c:ear!y and unequivocally in more than
one
way, that the provisions of s. 14A and Chapter IHA of
the
Delhi
Rent Act would have precedence over anything else contained in that
Act itself or in any other law.
Section 25C contained in Chapter IlIA points in the sallle direction.
Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Act provides that where
a.
landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the·
recovery of po1Ssession thereof shall lie under sub-section ( 1) on the
E
ground specified in clause ( e) of the proviso thereto unless a period
· of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition.
A person
who acquires by allotment any premises from the Central Government or a local authority would, by reagon of s. 14(6), be disabled'
from asking for poosession of his own house from his tenant under
s. 14A, before the expiry of five years from the date of allotment.
In order that the object of s. 14A may not be frustrated, s. 25C proF
vides that nothing contained in s. 14(6) shall apply to a
laJ11dlord
who is in possession of premises allotted to him by the Central Government or a local authority and who is required to vacate that residential accommodation.
Section 14(7) of th'i Delhi Rent Act provides that where an order for the recovery of posse5sion is made on
the ground specified in clause ( e) of tb.e proviso to sub-sec. (1) , the
landlord shall not be entitled to obtain poosession thereof before the
G
expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order.
Sub-section (2) of s. 25C reduces the period of six months to
twomonths, which again emphasises that the object of the legislature is
to confer a real, effective and immediate right on a class ?f landlords
to obtain possession of premises let out by them to
therr
tenants.
Whatever be the merits of that philosophy, the theory is that an
allottee from the Central Government or a local authority should uot
H
be at the mercy of law'IS delays while being fa~ed wit~ inst.ant eviction by his landlord save on paym~nt of wh~t m pract1.ce
rs . penal
rent.
Faced with a Robson's choice, to qmt the official
restdenre
or pay the market rent for it, the allottee had in turn to be afforded
_,
SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.)
433.
/
i. .... ,r
a quick and expeditious remedy against his own tenant.
With that
end in view it was provided that nothing, not even the Slum Clearance
Act, shall stand in the way of the allottee from evicting his tenant by
re5orting to the summary procedure prescribed by
Chapter
IIIA.
The tenant is even deprived of the elementary right of a defendant tQ
defend a proceeding brought against him, save on obtaining leave of
the Rent Controller. If the leave is refused, by s.