CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1987) 07 SC CK 0013

Shafait Ali through Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs Shiva Mal (Dead) by Lrs.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 31 July 1987 · Citation: AIR 1988 SC 214 : (1987) 2 SCALE 186 : (1987) 3 SCC 728 : (1987) 3 SCR 689

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J · G. L. Oza, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 1982

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 363 words
1.

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 eviction of the premises in question u/s 14(1)(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 SLP (civil) No. 2290/82 were pending at that time. It appears that the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Bhargava, where this Court held that 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 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(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.

2.

this Court held that there is no difference either on principle or in law between Section 14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations.

3.

this Court further held that in view of the procedure in Chapter III A of the Rent Act, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority u/s 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within Section 14(1)(e) or 14A of the Rent Act. In the premises the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to pi costs.

4.

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