1995 JTR(SC) 214
1995 Supp3 SCC 185
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : S.Mohan
J.D.Hingorani
Versus
Ashok Kharbanda
Case No. : 3445 of 1993
Date of Decision : 2/8/95
A retired government servant cannot invoke Section 14-C of the Amending Act 57 of 1988 for immediate possession if the property was let out after their retirement, as the provision is intended for those requiring immediate housing upon losing government quarters.
Act
Referred
:DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
: S.14(c)
(A) Amending Act 57 of 1988 - Sections 14-B, 14-C and 14-D - Section 14(1) - Eviction of tenant - Retired government servant - Benefit of Section 14-C - Where a retired employee of the central government lets out the property after retirement, the benefit of Section 14-C cannot be invoked - Special proceedings under these sections are envisaged to provide immediate possession to avoid tortuous litigation, particularly for those who ceased to have the benefit of government quarters upon retirement - If the property is let out after retirement, the element of immediacy is lost. (Para 1)
(B) Remedy for eviction - A retired government servant who cannot invoke Section 14-C may still seek eviction under Section 14(1), provided the petition is filed within one year from the date of retirement or within one year from the commencement of the Amending Act 57 of 1988, whichever is later. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A retired government employee let out a property after his retirement and subsequently sought to evict the tenant by invoking the special provisions of Section 14-C of the Amending Act 57 of 1988.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the benefit of Section 14-C is not available to a retired government employee who lets out the property after retirement, as the special provision is intended to ensure immediate possession for those who lose government housing upon retirement.
Issues: Whether a retired government servant who lets out property after retirement is entitled to invoke the benefit of Section 14-C for the eviction of a tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Sections 14-B, 14-C, and 14-D were inserted to provide immediate possession and avoid long-drawn litigation for specific categories of persons, such as retired government servants who lose government quarters. Since the property was let out after retirement, the requirement of immediacy was not met, thereby disqualifying the use of Section 14-C.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Remedy for eviction - A retired government servant who cannot invoke Section 14-C may still seek eviction under Section 14(1), provided the petition is filed within one year from the date of retirement or within one year from the commencement of the Amending Act 57 of 1988, whichever is later. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A retired government employee let out a property after his retirement and subsequently sought to evict the tenant by invoking the special provisions of Section 14-C of the Amending Act 57 of 1988.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the benefit of Section 14-C is not available to a retired government employee who lets out the property after retirement, as the special provision is intended to ensure immediate possession for those who lose government housing upon retirement.
Issues: Whether a retired government servant who lets out property after retirement is entitled to invoke the benefit of Section 14-C for the eviction of a tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Sections 14-B, 14-C, and 14-D were inserted to provide immediate possession and avoid long-drawn litigation for specific categories of persons, such as retired government servants who lose government quarters. Since the property was let out after retirement, the requirement of immediacy was not met, thereby disqualifying the use of Section 14-C.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(1) WHERE a retired employee of the central government or of the Delhi Administration lets out the property after his retirement, he cannot invoke the benefit of Section 14-C. This is the finding of the courts below. We find that is correct. Besides, there is also great reason and justice to hold so. It may, at once, be seen S. 14-B, 14-C and 14-D came to be inserted by Amending Act 57 of 1988 in order that certain persons may not undergo tortuous course of litigation but may be given immediate possession. Section 14-B talks of members of Armed Forces, 14-C retired government servants and 14-D of widows. The fact that these S. emphasise immediate possession is a clear indication that they may resort to these special proceedings under these three sections. Obviously, this postulates that where the retired government servant, for example, till his retirement had the benefit of the government quarters and on his retirement he would cease to have such benefit, necessarily, he must be provided with premises. If he were to go under any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1. it wilt be a long drawn battle. Therefore, these provisions are envisaged.
(2) IN the case on hand, admittedly, the appellant-landlord let out after his retirement. Therefore, the immediacy goes. He cannot get the tenant evicted by invoking Section 14-C. But that does not mean he is without remedy. Still he can seek eviction under Section 14(1. The important factor which requires to be noted is that such a petition by the retired government servant will have to be filed within one year from the date of retirement or within one year from the date of the commencement of the Amending Act 57 of 1988, whichever is later, Here again, the emphasis is on immediacy. It is admitted before us that, in fact, such a proceeding has been launched by the appellant-landlord against the respondent, though, of course, that does not weigh with us in construing the section, namely Section 14-C. We hold as we have done. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.