Holding

When a tenant discloses prima facie facts that would disentitle the landlord, the Rent Controller must grant leave to defend; the lower courts erred in refusing such leave and their orders are set aside.

Summary

The respondent, claiming ownership of a Delhi premises through a sale deed, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, invoking bona‑fide requirement. The appellants, tenants, contended that the property was vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India and therefore could not be alienated, relying on an intimation (Exhibit P‑1) and an earlier order declaring the premises non‑evacuee. The Rent Controller refused to grant them leave to defend, and the High Court affirmed that order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that under Section 25B(5) the Controller must grant leave when a tenant discloses prima facie facts that would disentitle the landlord, and that the lower courts erred by ignoring the protective purpose of rent‑control legislation. Consequently, the orders of the Rent Controller and the High Court were set aside and the appellants were granted leave to contest the eviction, with the Controller directed to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the Rent Controller was required to grant leave to defend under Section 25B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act when the tenant disclosed prima facie grounds of the property being vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property.
Whether the property fell within the jurisdiction of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, thereby rendering the Rent Controller without jurisdiction.
Whether the appellant's pleadings were frivolous, baseless, unreal and unfounded.
Interpretation of the object and scheme of the Delhi Rent Control Act in relation to tenant protection.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XXXVII
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 25B(5)
Enemy Property Act, 1968s. 18, s. 19
Evacuee Property Act

Subjects

rent controlevictionleave to defendenemy propertytenant protectionstatutory interpretationDelhi Rent Control Actadverse possession

Judgment

A LIAQ AHMED AND ORS. '-{
v.
SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN

APRIL 28, 2000
">

B [S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]

Rent Control & Eviction :
j-
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14(l()e) r/w Section 25-B-
Petition under-Leave to defend-Grant of-Rent Controller-Jurisdiction of-
c Held, if tenant discloses ground and pleads a cause which prima f acie is not
baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is obliged to grant him leave to

D
defend-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder XXXVII-Enemy Properties Act,
1968-Section 18-Evacuee Property Act.

Rent Control Legislation-Legislative intent-Are intended to preserve
social environment and promote social justice by safeguarding the interests of
. .,..
the tenants.

In.terpretation of Statute-Rent Control Law-Interpretation of-H<:ld,
should be by keeping in mind the object ofthe legislation-Where the Rent Acts
E 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.

Respondent claiming to be the owner of the property in question on
the basis ofa sale deed, filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona.fide
F requirement. The appellant opposed the petition on the ground that the
property is vested in the Custodian of Enemy Properties of India, which )-
could not be alienated or sold to the respondent, along with other grounds.
The Rent Controller did not grant him leave to defend and rejected the
plea of the appellants, considering an order dated 30th March, 1954 passed
G by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) in relation to the premises whereby it
was declared as non-evacuee property.
\
High Court confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. ~

In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that they are the
H tenant of the property having a right to resist the claim of the respondent
800
_, ~

LIAQ AHMED v. SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN 801
7 and they relied on Exhibit P-1, an intimation by the Custodian of Enemy A
Property for India to the grandfather of the appellants to the effect that
the property had vested in the Custodian of the Enemy Property for India.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. The Controller as well as the High Court appear to have B
completely ignored the object of the Rent Control legislation and the
i scheme of the Act while dealing with the case of the appellants. 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 infirmi- c
ties which are required to be set aside. (804-D; 805-G]

1.2. From the scheme or the Delhi Rent Control Act, it is evident that
-t .... if tenant disclo~es ground 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 D
enquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary enquiry to primafacie 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 Con-
->. troller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of E
~
facts and not the proof of the facts. [804-B-D]

2. Rent Controller filed 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 was
issued intimating that the property, the subject matter of the litigation, had F
--(
vested in the Custodian of Enemy Properties for India. (805-E]

3.1. 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.
G
The provisions of the Rent Acts; therefore, may result in frustrating the
~ object for which the legislation W&S made. It should be kept in mind that
the Rent Acts undoubtedly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose
benefit they were essentially passed. The rational approach in intepreting
the law relating to the control of rents is expected from the courts dealing
\vith the cases under the statutes relating to rent by keeping in mind the H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R.
A object of the legislation intended to provide social justice preventing un- "(
~rupulous landlord to their pressure under threat of eviction. (803-C-E]

3.2. 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 advanc-
B ing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. (802-F]

Mangat Ram v. Kedar Nath, [1980] 4 SCC 276, relied on.
l
CIVIl.. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3022 of 2000. "'.,
c From the Judgment and Order dated 16.4.99 of the Delhi High Court
in C.R. No. 337 of 1998.

Bahar U. Bargi and Anis Suhrawardy for the Appellants. ._ ~·
S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta and Ms. Shobha for the Respondent.
D
'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Leave granted.

Rent control legislations have been acknowledged to be pieces of social
~
E legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the
landlord and the 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 v. Kedar Nath,
(1980] 4 SCC 276 held that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified
F 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 protectioflt to the tenants.

The history of the legislation regarding Rent Controls in. the country
G would show that the Rent ~cts 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
H gradually extended to other areas in the country. Because of scarcity of the
LIAQ AHMED v. SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN [SETHI, J.] 803

accommodation and gradual rise in the rents due to appreciation of the value A
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
B
landlords for which appropriate legislations came to be passed by almost all
the States and Union Territories in the country 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 c
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 undoubt-
edly lean more in favour of the tenants for whose benefits they were D
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 E
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 (I) define
'landlord' and 'tenant' respectively. Section 14 provides protection to F
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(0) confer rights upon
the landlord to recover immediate possession of premises on the grounds
mentioned therein. Section 15 specifies the circumstances where the tenant G
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:
H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A "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."
B
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
c 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 <_>f facts and not the proof of the facts. In the
D instant case the Controller as well as the High Court appear to have com-
pletely ignored the object of the Rent Control legislation and the scheme of
the Act while dealing with the case 'of the appellants.

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,
E 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
F 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 forleited
G
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
H property by adverse possession and restrict their claim to be the tenants
LIAQ AHMED v. SHRI HABEEB-UR-REHMAN [SETHI. J.] 805
thereof having a right to resist the claim of the respondent and to remain in A
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 B
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. C
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 D
consideration order dated 30th March, 1954 passed by the Assistant Custo-
dian (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
E
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 conse-
quence 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 F
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, 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 G
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 H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A 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.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
B

,..\._