ivil Appeal No 2047 of 1982
690 From the Judgment and Order dated 163
1982 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Rev No 147 of 1982
WA Quadri and Kailash Mehta for the Appellant
MC Dhingra for the Respondents
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 eviction of the premises in question under Section 141e 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 105181 and special leave petition civil No 229082 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 14e 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 provi sions 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 would have no application in cases covered by Sections 14A and 141e of the Delhi Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976
This Court held that there is no difference either on principle or in law between section 141e and 14A 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 IIIA 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 under Section 191a of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within Section 141e or 14A of the Rent Act
In the premises the appeal fails and is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
691 The decree for eviction shall not be executed before 301187 provided the appellant files an undertaking in the usual form within four weeks from today
APJ Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Appellant was ordered to be evicted under section 141e of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord
Dismissing the Appeal to this Court HELD 1
Sections 14A 14e 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 and Clear ance Act 1956 would have no application in cases covered by sections 14A and 141e of the Rent Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976
690D F 2
There is no difference either on principle or in law between section 141e 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 the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority under section 191a of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within section 141e or 14A of the Rent Act
690G H