tition No 215 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India MS Gujral Ms Kirti Misra and B B Sawhney for the Petitioners
GB Pari OC Mathur Ms Meera and section Sukumaran for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
This writ petition under article 32 filed on behalf of about 450 erstwhile employees of Ms Burmah Shell retired between May 1 1979 and December 1984 is for a mandamus or direction to the respondents to restore full pension which had been commuted to the petitioner Nos 2 to 5 and others similarly situated upon the expiry of 12 12 years from date of retirement in case of those retired prior to April 1985 and after 11 13 years to those retired prior to April 1 1985 from their respective dates of retirement
They claim that though in their previous Writ Petition No 59087 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on May 11 1988 of which one of us Ranganath Misra J was a member a hike in the pension effective from May 1 1988 was granted
Consideration of the present relief had been left over for a later period
Admittedly the petitioners in Writ Petition No 59087 sought two reliefs namely i restora tion of the commuted portion of the pension and ii en hancement of pension or par with the pensioners of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for short HPCL 
During the course of hearing claim for the 964 first relief was given up and submission was confined to the second relief
This Court accepted the contentions of the petitioners and ordered a seizeable hike in the pension
The relief in this writ petition squarely covers relief No 1 of Writ Petition No 59087
But the ground on which the peti tioners have again come before the Court within a short spell is that their hope of the respondent s sister concern namely HPCL restoring commuted portion of pension to its pensioners has been smashed as it has deferred its decision on the issue till 1992
Their learned counsel contends that in Common Cause  Ors
vs Union of India  this Court upheld the 15 years formula and directed that the commuted portion of the pension should be restored to all the civil servants as well as the armed forces personnel of the Central Government effective from April 1 1985
It is maintained that as principle the same would be applicable to the petitioners as well
The respondents it is claimed have to bear an additional liability of only a sum of Rs10241635 out of its huge profits without in any manner affecting its functioning
When the employees of the Central Govt
and other Public Sector Undertakings are receiving the same benefits the denial thereof to the petitioners is arbitrary unjust and unfair and offends article 14 of the Constitution
There is no scheme in vouge in other Public Sector Undertakings like commuted pension scheme except in HPCI
Though HPCL has postponed action in this regard till 1992 the petitioners are not precluded to approach this Court for redressal and the previous decision does not operate as res judicata
This Court having accorded in equity benefits of pension which is a legal right of the petitioner the relief also may be granted to the petition ers
Shri Pai learned counsel for the respondents has resisted all these contentions
The short question is wheth er it is a fit case for interference and issue of a direc tion to the respondents to give the relief as prayed for
Admittedly the petitioners claimed this relief in Writ Petition No 59087
This Court after appropriate considera tion held that a sizeable hike in pension would meet the ends of justice
Admittedly Burmah Shell has a unique scheme known as Burmah Shell India Pension Fund with its own rules
This Court held that the retired personnel would be entitled to a hike in pension at par with pensioners of HPCL
Admittedly HPCL has not accorded to its pensioners the relief of restoration of the commuted portion of pension after the expiry of 15 years
The order passed by this Court is as recent as May 11 1988
After such a short time lag and in the absence of any substantial change in the posi tion in our considered view it is not desirable to enter tain the claim for restoration of commuted pen 965 sion
Admittedly the petitioners are governed by a special scheme which is not at par with Government employees or the other Public Sector Undertakings
In all fairness Shri Pai also has stated that as and when HPCL revises its scheme the petitioners would be entitled to the same benefits
Grant or  the relief at this stage would create disparity between the personnel who receive pension from HPCL and the re spondents
We find sufficient justification in the conten tion of Shri Pai
So we do not feel justified that it would be appropriate to interfere and grant the relief as prayed for
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without costs
GN Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner tenant was let out the demised premises by the landlord for a period of three years with permission of Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act the landlord died before the expiry of period of tenan cy
After the expiry of the period his legal representa tives made an application for recovery of possession
This application was resisted by the tenant on the ground that proceedings for recovery of possession under section 21 could not be initiated and continued by legal representa tives of the landlord who had obtained permission
Having failed before the High Court the petitioner has filed petition for special leave
It was contended on his behalf that landlord  in second part of section 21 enti tling him to claim vacant possession should be confined to the person who had obtained permission on the premise that he does not require the whole or any part of the premises for a particular period
 Dismissing the special leave petition this Court HELD 1 Section 21 is a self contained code
The purpose and objective of its enactment as provision of short duration tenancy or periodical tenancy in Rent Control Act of Delhi is unique amongst such legislations
What was unique of it was not short duration tenancy but a fresh look on eviction
27G 28G Shiv Chand Kapoor vs Amar Bose   referred to
2 Since section 21 is an exception to section 14 and it mandates restoration of possession notwithstanding any other law it has to be construed strictly and against any attempt to frustrate it
28G 26 3 Recovery of possession under section 21 is not hedged by any inquiry or opportunity if permission is not challenged on any of the exceptions which have been carved out by courts obviously to uphold fairness and honesty the core of our jurisprudence
Right to get vacant possession is thus absolute
29D SB Noronah vs Prem Kumari Khanna   VS Rahe vs Smt
Rem Chamben  Shiv Chand Kapoor vs Amar Bose   referred to
4 The expression for the time being in section 2e makes it clear that landlord has to be understood in presen ti
That is anyone entitled to receive rent is the landlord
It does not visualise past or future landlord
Therefore the word landlord on plain reading of Section 21 does not warrant construction of the word in any other manner
29G 5 Constructionally Section 21 is in two parts one creation of short term tenancy and other its execution after expiry of time
Both stand on their own and operate inde pendently
Non requirement of premises for time being fur nishes basis for entering into agreement for periodical tenancy
Truth of it or its genuineness are relevant consid erations for granting permission
And the permission granted continues unabated unaffected irrespective of variation in requirement
30D E 6 Vacation is not linked with landlord but with time
Expiry of it obliges tenant to vacate
If he does not then whosoever is the landlord at the time of afflux of tenancy may approach Controller for putting him in vacant posses sion
Death of landlord does not either shorten or enlarge period nor the consequences envisaged are altered or affect ed
30F 7 The doctrine of actio personalies moritur cum per sonna does not apply to Rent Control Acts
Its applicability was generally confined to actions for damages for defama tion seduction inducing a spouse to remain apart from the other and adultery
31D C Supreme Bank vs
PA Tindulcar   Shanti Lal Thakur Das  Ors
vs Chaman Lal Magan Lal Lala Phool Rani vs Naubat Rai  referred to
8 An action for eviction abates only if the cause of action does 27 not survive
The cause of action for granting permission was the nonrequirement by the landlord of the premises for the time mentioned in the agreement whereas cause of action for eviction is non vacation by the tenant after the expiry of period
Therefore it is immaterial who is the landlord at the time when the action for vacation arose
31F G 9 Permission in the instant case was granted on state ment of parties in regard to their necessity or non require ment of the premises
Such necessity to let out or non requirement by the landlord could not be brought into those exceptions which invalidated permission
Therefore death of the landlord was immaterial as even the reason for letting out did not die with death of landlord
32A B