Special Leave Petition Civil No 7914 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 2651989 of Delhi High Court in SAO No 296 of 1984
VM Tarkunde and SK Gupta for the petitioner
Dr YS Chitale Ramji Srinivasan PK Jain and Ra vinder Nath for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RM SAHAI J
Tenant inducted in 1979 for three years 2by the landlord under a written agreement in C 433 Saf darjang Development Area New Delhi with permission of Controller under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act for brevity the Act  seeks leave of this Court on limited question of law if proceedings for recovery of possession under Section 21 of the Act could be initiated and continued by legal representatives of the landlord who had obtained permission but who died before expiry of period of tenancy
Answer of it shall depend primarily on construction of word landlord  used in Section 21 a provision held to be self contained code in Shiv Chand Kapoor vs Amar Bose  and also the purpose and objective of its enactment as provision of short duration tenancy or periodi cal tenancy in Rent Control Act of Delhi right from 1952 is unique amongst such legislations and is probably non exist ent in any other State
It reads as under 28 21
Recovery of possession in case of tenancies for limited period 1 Where a landlord does not require the whole or any part of any premises for a particular period and the landlord after obtaining the permission of the Controller in the prescribed manner lets the whole of the premises or part thereof as a residence for such period as may be agreed to in writing between the landlord and the tenant and the tenant does not on the expiry of the said period vacate such premises then notwithstanding anything contained in Section 14 or in any other law the Controller may or an application made to him in this behalf by the landlord within such time as may be prescribed place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises or part thereof by evict ing the tenant and every other person who may be in occupa tion of such premises
2 while making an order under sub section 1 the Con troller may award to the landlord such damages for the use or occupation of the premises at such rates as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case for the period from the date of such order till the date of actual vacation by the tenant
 What it undoubtedly projects is the legislative aware ness of acute crisis of houses in the State
To resolve the paucity of accommodation on one hand due to enormous influx of office personnel and business class as a result of rapid growth of social economic and political activity and apprehension of house owners on other bulk of whom hail from middle class or service class of loosing their houses if not for good then for substantial period due to develop ment of strange phenomenon in big cities that allotted or rented houses are more economical than even own the legis lature which is the best judge of need of its people carved out an exception to usual rent control provisions of pro tecting tenants from eviction What was unique of it was not short duration tenancy but a fresh look on eviction
Vacant possession was ensured statutorily without any notice or termination of tenancy or the hazard of establishing bona fide need and comparative hardship etc
Since sec
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
Intensity of it can be appreciated better if its language is compared 29 with other provisions of recovery of possession even though those provisions namely secs
14A 14B 14C and 14D were introduced later
They also provide speedy remedy to recover possession
But the landlord cannot succeed unless he is able to prove circumstances mentioned in it
More than this the tenant has been given right to contest under Section 25B Import of Section 21 on the other hand is altogether different
It enjoins Controller to place landlord in vacant possession after expiry of time without any right to tenant to contest it except to the limited extent that permission was vitiated by fraud as held in SB Noronah vs Prem Kumari Khanna  or misuse of the provision by land lord taking advantage of helpless situation of the tenant as held in VS Rahe vs Smt
Rem Chambeh  or the permission really did not create genuine tenancy as held in Shiv Chand Kapoor vs Amar Bose supra
Recovery of pos session under Section 21 is not hedged by any inquiry or opportunity if permission is not challenged on any of those exceptions which have been carved out by courts obviously to uphold fairness and honesty the core of our jurispru dence
Right to get vacant possession is thus absolute
Purpose and objective of the Section having been ascer tained it may now be examined if the word landlord used in the second part of the Section which empowers landlord to make an application for recovery of possession is to be understood as the same landlord who made the application or his legal representatives as well
In other words is there any justification for construing the word landlord in a narrow sense so as to restrict it only to the person who made the application and obtained permission
Landlord has been defined in Section 2e as under 2e landlord  means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any prem ises whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant
 Expression for the time being makes it clear that land lord has to be understood in praesentii
That is anyone entitled to receive rent is the landlord
It does not visua lise past or future landlord
Therefore the word land lord
on plain reading of Section 21 does not warrant construction of the word in any other manner
Basis for submission however that landlord in second part of Section 21 entitling him to 30 claim vacant possession should be confined to the person who obtained permission was rounded on use of expression who does not require the whole or any part of the premises for a particular period
 Attempt was made to personalise eviction proceedings by linking it with the person due to whose non requirement the permission was granted resulting in automatic exclusion of legal representatives
To put it interpretationally the word landlord in second part was urged to be understood in a manner different than it is defined in Section 2e
Can it be said that context or setting of Section 21 is such that the word landlord in second part of it should be understood in a different sense than that in definition clause Not on prima facie reading of it which has already been adverted to
Neither on close analysis
What is visualised is occasion for short duration tenancy due to non requirement of whole or part of premises by landlord for time being method of its creation by writ ten agreement entered with tenant statutory status to it by permission obtained from Controller and execution by resto ration of vacant possession if the tenant does not vacate after expiry of period
All condensed in one
Construction ally it 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 independently
Non requirement of premises for time being furnishes basis for entering into agreement for periodical tenancy
Truth of it on its genu ineness are relevant considerations for granting permission
But it exhausts thereafter except to the limited extent pointed out in decisions referred earlier
And the permis sion granted continues unabated unaffected irrespective of variation in requirement
Necessity of landlord again does not entitle him to seek its revocation
Even his death cannot shorten the period
Similarly once period expires the agreement the permission all cease to operate by operation of law
Nothing further is required
Vacation is not linked with landlord but with time
Expiry of it obliges tenant to vacate
If he does not then the landlord may approach Con troller for putting him in vacant possession
Which land lord Obviously whosoever is the landlord at the time of afflux of tenancy
Death of landlord does not either shorten or enlarge period nor the consequences envisaged are altered or affected
Use of expression notwithstanding any other law render it obligatory on tenant to vacate without questioning au thority of landlord
Any other construction may as rightly observed by the High Court lead to disastrous consequences
Even on principles of civil law the provision for recovery of possession being in nature of execution it could not be successfully resisted on the death of landlord due to whose non requirement the permission was granted
Such narrow and 31 unreaIistic construction of the word landlord  shall frus trate entire purpose of Section 21
Maxim of actio personalies mortiur cum personna cannot apply either on principle or on facts
In Supreme Bank vs
PA Tendulkar  this Court while dis cussing applicability of the maxim held whatever view one may take of the justice of the principle it was clear that it would not be applicable to actions based on contract or where tort feasers  Estate had benefitted from a wrong done
Its applicability was generally confined to actions for damages for defamation seduction inducing a spouse to remain apart from the other and adultery In Phool Rani vs Naubat Rai  a decision which was relied by petitioner in support of submission that an application filed for eviction of a tenant on bona fide need lapses on the death of landlord and it could not be continued by his legal representatives overruled in Shanti Lal Thakur Das and Ors
vs Chaman Lal Maganlal Telwala it was observed that doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum personna did not apply to Rent Control Acts
Even otherwise an action for eviction abates only if the cause of action does not survive
What is the cause of action for an application for vacant possession in Section 21 death of landlord or expiry of time for which tenancy was created
Obviously the latter the failure  of tenant to honour his commitment to vacate the premises after expiry of time for which he was inducted with permission of Control ler
The death of the person who obtained the permission has nothing to do with it
Permission was obtained because the landlord did not require the premises on the date when it was let out to tenant
That does not continue on the date when the tenant does not vacate the premises
The necessity of not requiring the premises for some time or for the duration the tenant was inducted was confined to the date when the permission was granted
It could not be taken further to the time when the question of vacation arose
The cause of action for granting permission was the non require ment 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
Even on facts permission was applied for by the landlord as premises was surplus to his need for a limited period of 3 years due to the reason that his son had gone abroad and he was expected to return 32 after three years
Permission was granted for this reason on statement of parties
Such necessity to let out or non requirement by the landlord could not be brought into those exceptions which invalidate permission
Therefore death of the landlord was immaterial as even the reason for letting out did not die with death of landlord
In the result this petition for special leave fails and is dismissed
In the circumstances of the case the tenant is directed to suffer costs which we quantify at Rs5000
RSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
Rule 92 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules 1982 provides that an appeal filed under the direction of the Collector or the Administrator shall be accompanied by an attested copy of the order containing such direction
Pursuant to a general authority and an order of the Collector on the file note sheet the appellant filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal which dismissed it by holding that it was not in consonance with Rule 2
Hence this appeal by the Revenue
Setting aside the order of the Tribunal and disposing the appeal this Court HELD 1
Having regard to the purpose of the rules namely to ensure that there was an application of mind to the points in respect of which the question for filing an appeal arose and that the appeal was duly authorised by the Collector and was filed by the person authorised by the Collector in order to ensure that frivolous and unnecessary appeals are not filed it must be held that in the present context and in view of the terms of the rules and the pur pose intended to be served the appeal was competent and was duly filed in compliance with the procedure as enjoined by the rules
The rules were to carry out the purposes of the Act
Therefore the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeal
1030D F G 2
The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for considera tion of the Appeal on merits
1030H 1028