Holding

Sections 14(1)(e), 14A, 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions that, by virtue of their non‑obstante clause, override the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, making prior permission under that Act unnecessary, and there is no substantive difference between Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A.

Summary

The appellant, Shafait Ali, appealed against an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The principal question was whether Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A (along with 25A‑C) of the Rent Act are special provisions that override the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, and whether a landlord must obtain permission from the Competent Authority under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before filing an eviction suit. The Supreme Court held that the cited sections of the Rent Act are indeed special provisions containing a non‑obstante clause, thereby superseding the Slum Act in matters of eviction. It further ruled that there is no substantive difference between Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A, despite their application to different situations. Consequently, the landlord is not required to seek prior permission under the Slum Act, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 are special provisions that override the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.
Whether any legal distinction exists between Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A in principle or law.
Whether a landlord must obtain permission from the Competent Authority under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting an eviction suit under the Rent Act.

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 14A, s. 25A, s. 25B, s. 25C
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956s. 19(1)(a)

Subjects

evictionDelhi Rent Control Actspecial provisionsSlum Areas Actnon‑obstante clauselandlord's bona‑fide requirementcivil appealtenancy law

Judgment

,, SHAFAIT ALI THROUGH SUPREME COURT
LEGAL AID COMMiTIEE
A
v.
SHIVA MAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

JULY 31, 1987
B
'I [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]
~
I Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-ss. 14(1)(e), 14A, 25A, 25B and
25C-Whether special provisions-ss. 14(l)(e) and 14A-Whether any

- difference between them either on principle or in law-Proceedings
under ss. 14(1)(e) and 14A-Whether Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, 1956 applicable-Whether permission of Competent
c
y Authority unders s. 19(l)(a) necessary before instituting suit for
eviction.
The Appellant was ordered to be evicted under s. 14(l)(e) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bona fide requirement of
D
the landlord.
::'(
Dismissing the Appeal, to this Court,

HELD: 1. Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958, are special provisions so far as the landlord

_,.. and tenant are concerned and further in view of the non-obstante clause
in the section these provisions over-ride the existing law so far as the
new procedure Is concerned. Therefore, the Slum Areas (Improvement
E

. and Clearance) Act, 1956, would have no application in cases covered
by ss. 14A and 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act especially in view of the provi-
sions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976. [690D-F]
F
2. There Is no difference either on principle or in law between s.
14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate
to eviction of tenants under different situations. [690F]

3. In view of the procedure in Chapter III-A of the Rent Act, tlie
~ Slum Act Is rendered Inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is G
not necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent
Authority under s. 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for
eviction and coming withins. 14(1)(e) or 14A of the Rent Act. [690G-H]

- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2047
H
of 1982.
689
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.1982 of the Delhi High
Court in Civil Rev. No. 147 of 1982.

W.A. Quadri and Kailash Mehta for the Appellant.

B M.C. Dhingra for the Respondents. r
I
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special
leave against the judgment and order dated the 16th March, 1982 of
the High Court of Delhi in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1982 directing
C eviction of the premises in question under Section 14(l)(e) of the
-
Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bonafide requirement of the
landlord. The special leave was sought for and obtained from this
Court on the ground that Civil Appeal No. 1051/81 and special leave
petition (civil) No. 2290/82 were pending at that time. It appears that
D the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma
v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 614 where this Court held that y_
Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi Rent Control Act
are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned
and further in view of the non·obstante clause in the section these
provisions override the existing law so far as the new procedure is
E concerned. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no
application in cases covered by Sections 14A and 14(l)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were
added by the Amending Act of 1976.

F This Court held that there is no difference either on principle or
in Jaw between section 14(l)(e) and !4A of the Rent Act even though
these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different
situations.

This Court further held that in view of the procedure in Chapter
G IIIA of the Rent Act, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the .
extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the land- 'r·
lord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority under Section
!9(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and
coming within Section 14(1)(e) or !4A of the Rent Act. In the pre-
mises the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to
H costs.
SHAFAIT v. SHIVA MAL [MUKHARJI, J.] 691

-=t The decree for eviction shall not be executed before 30.11.87 A
provided the appellant files an undertaking in the usual form within
four weeks from today.

A.P.J. Appeal dismissed.
B

-

•

-~

...