ivil Appeal No 3804 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 26589 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 84 of 1989
Dr YS Chitale Mrs and Mr Rajan Karanjawala Atul Chitale and HS Anand for the Appellant
KK Jain JP Gupta Mrs Darshan Gupta and PD Sharma for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
This appeal is against the order for reinduction of the tenant into the premises under section 192 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958  The Act 
The facts are these The appellant filed two eviction peti tions 317 against the respondents one was under section 141e on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for occupation and the other was under section 141e for non payment of rent
The former suit was registered as Suit No 28877 and the later as Suit No 33077
On December 24 1977 Suit No 28877 was decreed in favour of the appellant
The respond ent was granted six months time to evict the premises
In fact the landlord has no right to evict the tenant for six months when the eviction order is made on the ground speci fied under section 141e
Section 147 prohibits the landlord from obtaining possession of the premises before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the eviction order
On April 17 1978 the Suit No 33077 was compromised as between the parties
Under the compromise the appellant accepted Rs6000 as arrears of rent as against the claim of Rs 29000 in the suit
The respondent tenant in turn agreed to put the appellant in possession of the premises
Accord ingly the tenant delivered the possession of the premises a fact which is not in dispute
It may be significant to note that when the tenant delivered possession of the premises six months period provided under section 147 did not expire for executing the eviction decree obtained in Suit No 28877
For some reason or the other the appellant could not continue in the premises
She has to let out the same to a third party
There then the tenant filed an application under sub section 2 of Section 19 claiming re entry into the premises
The Rent Controller rejected that application but upon appeal the Rent Control Tribunal has given relief to the tenant directing the appellant to put back the tenant in possession of the premises
The High Court has dismissed the Revision Petition in limine
It will be convenient if at this stage we read sub section 1 of Section 19 of the Act 191 Recovery of possession for occupation and reentry Where a landlord recovers possession of any prem ises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause e of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 14 or under Sections 14 A 14 B 14 C 14 D and 21 the landlord shall not except with the permission of the Con troller obtained in the prescribed manner re let the whole or any 318 part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining such possession and in granting such permission the Controller may direct the landlord to put such evicted tenant in possession of the premises
 Sub section 1 refers to recovery of possession of any premises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under Section 141e or under sub section 14 A 14 B 14 C 14 D and 21
The landlord shall not re let such premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant without the permission of the Controller
Sub section 2 of Section 19 is more important and must be set out in full 192 Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the land lord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held within two months of obtaining such possession or the premises having been so occupied are at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession re let to any person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller under subsection 1 or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide the Controller may on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit This sub section again operates in favour of the tenant who has suffered an order of eviction under section 141e or under Section 14 A to 14 D and 21
The landlord after recovering possession of the premises does not occupy the same or it is not occupied by the person for whose benefit the premises are held within 2 months of obtaining such possession the tenant may move the Controller for a direc tion against the landlord to put him in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit
Not merely that the tenant has a further right to move the Controller for such reliefs if the landlord has at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession re let the premises to third party without obtaining permission of the Controller under sub section 1 of section 19 or the 319 possession of such premises is transferred to another person not bona fide
This right of the tenant to re enter the premises is however restricted only in cases where the tenant is ordered to be evicted either under section 141e or under sections 14 A to 14 D and 21
If the possession is recovered under any order other than those referred to in sub section 1 the tenant has no right to invoke the provisions of sub section 2 of section 19
With these requirements of the statute it may now be examined whether the tenant has a right to seek re induction into the premises under sub section 2 of section 19
From the narration of facts it will be seen that the parties entered into a compromise in Suit No 33077 by which the tenant has willingly surrendered possession with payment of Rs6000 to the appellant as arrears of rent
On that day there was no execution of the decree for eviction obtained in Suit No 28877
It was however contended that the tenant willingly surrendered possession of the premises without waiting for the execution of the eviction decree in Suit No 28877 and there is no such bar for surrendering of possession under section 147 of the Act
We could have accepted this submission if there was only a decree for possession in Suit No 22877 but that is not so in the instant case
The possession was actually delivered to the appellant by the tenant as per the compromise recorded in the suit based on arrears of rent under section 141a and delivery of such possession cannot therefore be referable to the decree for eviction under section 141e
In fact that decree for eviction in Suit No 28877 was not put into execution and it was perhaps found unnecessary to execute that decree since the tenant has surrendered possession of the premises as per the compromise in Suit No 33077 based on arrears of rent
The application filed by the tenant under sub section 2 of section 19 of the Act was there fore clearly not maintainable
In the result the appeal is allowed and in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court we restore the order of the Rent Controller
In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
Certain cooperative housing societies comprising of the petitioners and others had acquired lands in the trans Jamuna area of Uttar Pradesh prior to the setting up of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority in 1976
When the said lands came to be notified for the Development Authority writ petitions were filed in 1983 under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the acquisition
In its order dated January 14 1985 the Court had directed the Authority to hand over actual possession of plots to allottees in volved in the dispute
Since a dispute had arisen as to the eligibility of a large number of applicants who had failed to keep to the time schedule in the matter of payment the Court in its interim order dated September 2 1983 had directed the Authority to reserve 269 acres of land in addition to the land already allotted
The petitioners in the instant case belong to this category
The total number of persons entitled to allotment has been determined at 2380
The Authority s scheme for the petitioners had stipulated four sizes of plots viz 1125 sq metres 162 sq metres 2025 sq metres and 250 sq metres
They therefore claimed an area of 130 acres out of the 269 acres set apart for them
The Authority however sought to reduce this area to 90 acres and the plot area to 7773 1123 14045 and 17353 sq metres respectively
Disposing of the petitions the Court
HELD If the scaling down from 130 acres to 90 acres is to be done the plots are bound to be of odd sizes and work ing out may be difficult
Therefore instead of 90 acres of land the total area to be released on that account should be 9629 acres and the different sizes of plots as provided in the scheme shall stand reduced to 100 sq metres 326 130 sq metres 150 sq metres and 180 sq metres respec tively
71 decimals of land should also be set apart for the other applicants being dealt with separately
The plots are to be developed by the Authority in accordance with the norms laid down and allotted within a period of nine months beginning from 1st of March 1990
329H 330F 331F Prices have gone up in every sphere
To bind the Author ity by the terms of its scheme at this point of time would not at all be fair
These 2380 persons have already depos ited huge amounts of money said to be about five crores of rupees with the Authority and the money has been held on account without utilisation as no final decision had been taken
The current rate per square metre is Rs1200
Taking into consideration the fact that the members have waited too long for allotment of their plots the Authority should be permitted to charge Rs1O00 per square metre
Every member who has deposited any sum of money with the Authority against proposed allotment shall ble entitled to 12 inter est on such amount from the date of deposit till the actual allotment and such interest accrued in favour of the person shall be entitled to adjustment against actual price of land to be worked out  Rs 1000 per square metre
Balance amount if any shah have to be paid by every person includ ed in the figure or 2380 within three months from the date of the order in monthly instalments
Failure to pay any of the instalments within the time limit indicated shall dis qualify such person from allotment
The terms in regard to allotment for the remaining few persons shall also be the same
330G 331E