ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 1044, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
A 
B 
c 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 1044 
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 
v. 
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 20913 of2017) 
DECEMBER 06, 2017 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 - s. 7(2). 14, 50 - New Delhi 
Municipal Council Act, 1994 - s.67(3), 411 - Whether property tax 
recoverable from the tenant u/s. 67(3) of the New Delhi Municipal 
Council Act, 1994 (NDMC Act) as arrea1:5 of rent by the landlord/ 
owner can be considered to be forming part of the rent for the 
purpose of seeking eviction of such tenant who de.fc111lts in payment 
of such recoverable tax as rent - Held: Delhi Rent Control Act is an 
· earlier Act when compared to the NDMC Act, it is a special enactment 
D 
in relation to landlord and tenant issue and has a non-obstante clause 
- It restricts the right of the landlord to evict the tenant at his will -
Sub-section (2) of s.7 of the Act puts an embargo on the landlord 
not to recover from the tenant any amount of tax on the building or 
land imposed in respect of the premises occupied by the tenant -
E 
F 
Whereas, NDMC Act is not a special enactment insofar as landlord-
tenant issue is concerned and it contains s. 411 which provides that 
other laws not to be disregarded - S.67(3) of the NDMC Act merely 
gives a right to recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent - It 
does not override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of 
s. 7 (2) of the Rent Act - Tax recoverable from the tenant 11/s.
67 (3) of 
the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant cannot be 
considered to be forming part of the rent for seeking eviction of the 
respondent who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rem 
- Interpretation of Statutes - Harmonious Construction. 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 -
Object of the Act -
G Interpretation of provisions - Held: It is settled that while 
inteq1reti11g the provisions of this Act, the Courts are under a legal 
compulsion to harmoniously read the provisions of the Act so as to 
balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the tenant 
towards each other, keeping in mind that one of the objects of the 
H 
1044
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1045 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
legislature while enacting the Rent Act was to curb the tendency of A 
the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants paying lower rent and 
to rent out the premises at the market rate. 
Interpretation of Statlltes - Harmonious Construction - Held: 
While the nomial pri11cij1le is that an earlier enactment will prevail 
over a latter enactment even if, there is a non-obstante clause in the 
latter enactment, if it were to be held that the earlier enactment is a 
special enactment on the particular subject being in issue -Assuming 
that the latter enactment prevailing over the earlier enactment were 
to apply ro this case, the two enactments have to be harmoniously 
construed so as to ensure that the latter enactment does not cause 
violence to the intent of the earlier enactment - Delhi Rent Control 
Act, 1958 - New Delhi Municip,,/ Council Act, 1994. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
HELD: Whether non-payment of property tax recoverable 
from the tenant as rent can be a ground for his cvictionlcjectment D 
from the premises 
1. The Delhi Rent Control Act is beneficial and also 
restrictive in nature. It is primarily an Act to provide for the 
control of rents and evictions. Section 14 occurring in Chapter 3 
of the Rent Act provides for controlling of eviction of tenants. It E 
puts an embargo as regards recovery of possession of any 
premises at the instance of the landlord unless the Controller
satisfies himself as regards existence of any of the grounds 
specifically referred to in the proviso appended thrrcto. [Para 
15] [1053-A-C] 
2. While the normal principle is that the latter enactment 
will prevail in cases where the latter enactment has a 11011-obstante 
clause, that is, giving it overriding effect and secondly, if it is also 
held to be a special enactment with regard to the matter in issue. 
In the instant case, the earlier enactment has a no11-obsta11te clause 
F 
in Section 14 which grants protection to the tenant from being 
G 
evicted from any premises "notwithstanding anything to the 
contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order of decree 
for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by 
any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant." 
H
1046 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A Thus the earlier enactment which is a special enactment has a 
· non-obstante clause and the latter enactment which is not a special 
enactment as far as landlord-tenant issue is concerned and the 
same docs not have a non-obsta11te clause and in fact, has a section 
namely Section 411 which provides that other laws not to be 
B disregarded. [Para 20] (1054-F-G] 
3. Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a right to 
recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent. It docs not 
override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of Section 
7(2) of the Rent Act. The tax recoverable from tbe tenant under 
Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant 
C 
cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose 
of seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondent who defaults in 
payment of such recoverable tax as rent. (Para 28) (1056-H; 
1057-A-B] 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Life· Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur 
and Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 315 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083; 
Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Viswa Co-operative Housing 
Society Ltd. and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 288 : [1990) 1 
SCR 862 - relied on. 
Karnani Properties Ltd. v. Augustine (1957) SCR 20; 
Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Life Insurance 
Corporation, Bombay (1970) 1 SCC 791 : [1971) 1 
SCR 335; Raju Kakara Shelty v. Ramesh Prataprao 
Shirole (1991) 1 SCC 570 : (1991) 1 SCR 51; 
D.C. Bhatia v. ()nion of India (1995) 1SCC104: [1994) 
4 Suppl. SCR
539; Calcutta Gujarati Education Socie(v 
v. Calcutta Municipal C01pn. (2003) 10 SCC 533 : 
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 915 - held inapplicable. 
Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman ILR (1978) l Delhi page 
139; St. Stephen:~ College v. 
Unive1:~ity of Delhi (1992) 
1 SCC 558 : [ 1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121; Gob ind Sugar 
Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 76; 
Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements 
Limited and Am: (2014) 8 SCC 319 : [2014) 3 SCR 1 
- referred to.
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1047 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
Case Law Reference 
[1957] SCR 20 
held inapplicable 
Para 10 
[1971] 1 SCR 335 
held inapplicable 
Para 10 
[1991] 1 SCR 51 
held inapplicable 
Para 10 
[1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 539 
held inapplicable 
Para 10 
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 915 
held inapplicable 
Para 10 
I 1981] 1 SCR 1083 
relied on 
Para 21 
[1990] 1 SCR 862 
relied on 
Para 22 
(1978) 1 Delhi page 139 
referred to 
Para 9 
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 
referred to 
Para 24 
(1999) 1 sec 76 
referred to 
Para 24 
[2014) 3 SCR 1 
referred to 
Para 25 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20913 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in RFANo. 480 of2013. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv., Bimal Roy Jad, Amit Sethi, Sushi! 
E 
Kumar Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Puneet Jain, Ms. Poonam, Abhinav Gupta, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
Vikas Singh, Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advs., Vishnu Mehra, Ms. Sakshi 
Mittal, Kapish Seth,. Ms. Shrishti Banerjee, Gagan Gupta, Ankit Jain, 
Avinash Shanna, Ankit Jain, Sachin Jain, Moh it D. Ram, Ms. Monisha 
F 
Randa, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal involves an important question oflaw as to whether 
G 
property tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the 
N.ew Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short 'NDMC Act') as 
arrears of rent by the landlord/owner can
be considered to be forming 
part of the rent for the purpose of seeking eviction or cjectment of such 
tenant who defaults in payment of such recoverable tax as rent and 
H
1048 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 12 S.C.R.. 
A 
when the rent including recoverable tax in respect of the tenanted premises 
exceeds Rs.3500/- per month, thereby losing protection of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'Rent Act'). 
B 
c 
3. The appellant/plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the building known 
· as Atma Ram Mansion (previously known as Scindia House), Connaught 
Circus, New Dclhi-110001 by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 
31.5.1980 executed by previous owners in favour of the plaintiff. The 
respondent/defendant has been a tenant in respect of a po1tion of the 
aforesaid prope1ty. The rent of tenanted premises prior to termination of 
tenancy was Rs.1438/- per month exclusive of electricity and water 
charges. The defendant has been paying service tax of Rs.148/- on the 
said amount of Rs.1438/- and thus the last paid rent was Rs.1586/- per 
month. 
4. Pursuant to the amendment of the New Delhi Municipal Council 
(Determination of Annual Rent) Byelaws, 2009, (for brevity 'the Byclaws 
2009') the hotise tax on the properties situated in the New Delhi Municipal 
D 
Council (for short 'NDMC') area was assessable on the basis of Unit 
Area System. The tenanted premises in occupation of the defendant fell 
within the jurisdiction of NDMC. The house tax payable on the said 
property in accordance with the Unit Arca System comes to Rs.9 ,64, 710/ 
E 
F 
· - per annum, i.e. Rs.80,392.50 per month. According to the plaintiff: the 
defendant was
liable to pay the said amount. The plaintiff issued a notice 
dated 6.7.2009 calling upon the defendant to pay the entire house tax or 
pay its monthly installment. However, the defendant neither replied to 
the same nor deposited/paid house tax to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued 
a further notice dated 8.12.2009 calling upon the defendant to pay the 
house tax. The defendant did not come forward to make payment of the 
house tax. In order to safeguard its property and to avoid any penal 
action, the plaintiff deposited the total house tax ofRs.2,94,23,237/- on 
the basis of self-assessment of the property tax with NDMC. After 
payment of the house tax, the plaintiff again sent a notice dated 7.4.2010 
calling upon the defendant to pay the said amount of tax. The notice was 
G 
returned with the report "left without address". 
5. According to the plaintiff, the tax paid on the suit property was 
far more than the initial rent, the amount of property tax levied by NDMC 
and the initial rent became recoverable as arrears of rent and the suit 
· property having fetched rent above Rs.3500/- per month has ceased the 
H 
protection of the Rent Act. As such the pluintiffvide legal notice dated
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1049 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. (S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.] 
16.6.20 I 0, terminated the tenancy of the defendant without prejudice to 
A 
its legal rights. The defendant sent a reply dated 23.7.2010 denying its 
liability to pay the rent. Therefore, plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a 
decree for possession of the tenanted premises, for damages/mesne 
profits ofRs.6,24,600/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.2011 till 31.5.2011 and for 
directing an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil 
B 
Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for assessment of future damages/ 
mesne profits till the delivery of vacant possession of the tenanted 
premises. 
--
6. The defendant filed the written.statement denying its liability to 
pay the enhanced rent. It was contended that the plaintiffhas no authority 
or power to increase the rent on its own. It was further contended that 
the tenanted premises is governed by the Rent Act and that the defendant 
is a protected tenant. The NDMC bye laws cannot govern the relationship 
of landlord and tenant by by-passing the provisions of the Rent Act. It 
was further contended that the house tax cannot be treated as arrears 
of rent. which takes away the premises from the ambit of the Rent Act. 
It was denied that the premises are governed by the Transfer of Property 
Act. It was contended that Section 67 of the NDMC Act speaks of 
apportionment of liability of tax when the premises are let out and sub-
c 
D 
let. It
is only the right to recover the house tax for which the landlord is 
entitled to. He cannot go for eviction of the tenant on any ground which 
is not specified under the Rent Act. Therefore, the suit for possession 
E 
filed by the plaintiff in a court other than the court of Rent Controller is 
barred by the provisions of Section 50 of the Rent Act. 
7. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Ruic 6 read 
with Section 151 of the CPC for passing a decree for possession of the 
tenanted premises for the reasons mentioned therein. The defendant 
opposed the application by filing objections. 
8. The trial Court passed an order dated 12.8.2013 granting decree 
F 
of possession of the tenanted premises in favour of the plaintiff. The 
High Court by the order dated 30.5.2016 has set aside the order of the 
trial Court and has remanded the matter to the trial Court. The appellant 
G 
has called in question the legality and correctness of the said order in 
this appeal. 
9. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
appellant/plaintiff, submits that after coming into force of the Byelaws 
H
1050 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 12 S.C.R. 
A 
2009, the property tax in the NDMC area was to be assessed on the 
basis of unit area system instead of previous basis of property tax on 
actual rent. As a result, the annual property tax payable for the area 
occupied by the respondent worked out at Rs.9,64,710/- p.a. i.e 
Rs.80,392.50/-per month when divided over twelve months period. The 
respondent failed to pay the house tax despite repeated request of the 
B · appellant; therefore the appellant was left with no alternative but to deposit 
entire arrears of tax. The appellant issued a notice dated 16.06.2010 
terminating the tenancy on the failure of the respondent to pay the said 
amount ofrent and instituted the suit under the provisions of the Transfer 
of Property Act. It is contended that the rate of rent per month was 
C 
Rs.1438/- and after adding the tax, it exceeded Rs.3500/- per month. 
Therefore, the tenant lost protection of the Rent Act. It is argued that 
the full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ganga Ram v. Mohd. Usman 
reported in ILR (1978) 1 Delhi page 139, has laid down that the amount 
of tax on building orland becomes part of the rent. Section 121(1) of the 
D 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Corporation Act') 
enables the landlord to recover from the tenant in excess of the amount 
ofhousc tax which has been levied on the building and which is in excess 
of the amount which would be leviable on the amount of contracted rent
received from the tenant. The Full Bench held that the landlord is entitled 
to recover, under Section 121 (1) of the said Act, the enhanced amount 
E . of house tax from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of tenancy 
and the provisions of Section 7(2) and Section 4 of the Rent Act. Sub-
sections (1) and (3) of Section 121 of the Corporation Act is in pari 
materia with sub-sections ( l) and (3) of Section 67 of the NDMC Act. 
For the reasons set out in the judgment of the Full Bench in Ganga Ram 
F 
(supra), the High Court ought to have dismissed the appeals. 
10. It is further argued that Section 7(2) of the Rent Act could not 
be the basis for denying the benefit of Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act. 
The tax component becomes a part of.the rent. If the tax component is 
added to the monthly rent, the total rent of the premises exceeds Rs.3,500/ 
-. It is submitted that the property tax has to be fictionally treated as rent 
G 
under Section 67(1) of the NDMC Act because in the absence of the 
same; the landlord would be compelled to pay the whole amount of tax 
which is recoverable from him and would be left to an expensive and 
cumbersome remedy of filing a civil suit for recovery of such tax. It is 
submitted that the liability to pay excess property tax is solely that of 
H·
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1051 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.) 
tenant and the landlord has been provided with 'rights and remedies' for 
A 
recovery of such amounts as rents. Therefore, the High Court was not 
justified in holding that the property tax will not constitute rent to enable 
the appellant to seek ejectment/posscssion of the suit property. In this 
connection, he bas relied on the decisions of this Court in Karnani 
Properties Ltd. v. Augustine, (1957) SCR 20. Bombay Municipal 
B 
Corporation v. Life Insurance Corporation, Bombay ( 1970) l SCC 
791, Raju Kukura Shetty v. Ramesh Prataprao Shirole, (1991) 1 
SCC 570, D.C. Bhatia v. Union oflndia, (1995) I SCC 104 and Calcutta 
Gujarati Education Society v. Calcutta Municipal Corpn., (2003) 
10 sec 533. 
11. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the 
respondent submits that the contractual rent of the suit property was 
c 
Rs. J ,586/- per month. The Rent Act is a special enactment, and has a 
non-obstante clause and the NDMC Act docs not contain a 11011-
obstante clause. Section 411 of the NDMC Act provides that. other 
laws not to be disregarded. The primacy of the statue would have to be 
D 
determined on the basis of the intention of the legislature. The NDMC 
Act is a general enactment and the special enactment prevails over the 
general enactment. It is pointed out that Section 67(3) ofNDMC Act 
permits the landlord to recover rent. However, for non-payment of
the 
rent which includes tax component, the landlord cannot sue for eviction/ 
ejectment of the tenant. Alternatively, it is argued that even ifthe NDMC 
Act prevailing over the Rent Act, still this Court has to harmoniously 
construe the provisions so as to ensure that latter t'nactmcnt does not 
violate the Rent Act. Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a 
right to recover the rent and even ifthe latter enactment was to override 
E 
the earlier enactment in so far as obviating the effect of Section 7(2) of F 
the Rent Act, still the tax could not be added as a rent for the purpose of 
determining as to whether the tenant will lose the protection under the 
Rent Act by adding the said rent to the contractual rent so as to consider 
it above Rs.3,500/- per month. 
12. The issue which arises for consideration in the present matter 
G 
is regarding the interplay of Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act vis-a-vis 
Section 7(2) of the Rent Act. Under Section 67(3) the landlord has 
been given the right to recover the house tax from the tenant as if the 
same were rent whereas under Section 7(2) of the Rent Act, there is a 
specific bar to recover any tax as rent from the tenant. 
H
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
13. Having regard the contentions urged, let us first consider as 
to whether in Ganga Ram (supra) Delhi High Court has taken a view 
that the tax recoverable under the Corporation Act can be made a part 
of the rent for the purpose of eviction/ejectment of a tenant. In Ganga 
Ram (supra) the tenant had sub-let a portion of the property and was 
B receiving rents from the sub-tenant. After taking into consideration the 
rents received by the tenant from the sub-tenant and the rent payable by 
him to the landlord, the corporation determined the rateable value on the 
basis that the premises was fetching higher rent than that of the rent 
· paid by the tenant to the landlord. It was the case of the landlord that 
he was entitled, under Section 121(1) of the Corporation Act, to recover 
C 
from the tenant the difference between the amount of property tax levied 
on the property and the amount of tax which would be leviable upon the 
premises if the tax was calculated only on the amount ofrent paid by the 
tenant to the landlord without taking into consideration the rent received 
by the tenant from the sub-tenant. Taking into consideration this plea, 
D 
the Court framed second question for determination as under: 
E 
F 
"(2) If so, whether the landlord is entitled to recover under section 
121 of the Corporation Act the enhanced amount of house tax 
from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of tenancy and the 
provisions of
sub-section (2) of Section 7 and 4 of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act?" 
14. It was held that the bar created by the provisions in the Rent 
Control Act pertains to "normal tax on a building" occupied by tenant. 
Bar containing in Section 7(2) in the Rent Act pertains to normal tax on 
· a building occupied by a tenant while Section 121(1) of the Corporation 
Act deals with the particular contingency where the property tax levied 
for the tenanted premises if more than the amount which would have 
been levied, had the assessment been made on the basis of the rent 
payable by the tenant to the landlord. The Court held that landlord is 
entitled to recover, under Section 121 of the Corporation Act, the enhanced 
amount of house tax from the tenant notwithstanding the contract of 
G tenancy and the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 and Section 4 
of the Rent Act. The Cou1t has not considered the question relating to 
eviction of a tenant under the provisions of Rent Act where protection is 
accorded to the tenant from eviction. 
15. The question for consideration in this appeal is entirely 
H different. The question is whether non-payment of property tax
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1053 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.] 
recoverable from the tenant as rent can be a ground for his eviction/ A 
ejectment from the premises. The Rent Act is beneficial and also 
restrictive in nature. It is primarily an Act to provide for the control of 
rents and evictions. It is settled that while interpreting the provisions of 
this Act, the Courts are under a legal compulsion to harmoniously read 
the provisions of the Act so as to balance the rights of the landlord and 
the obligations of the tenant towards each other, keeping in mind that 
one of the objects of the legislature while enacting the Rent Act was to 
curb the tendency of the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants paying 
lower rent and to rent out the premises at the market rate. Section 14 
occurring in Chapter 3 of the Rent Act provides for controlling of eviction 
of tenants. It puts an embargo as regards recovery of possession of any 
premises at the instance of the landlord unless the Controller satisfies 
himself as regards existence of any of the grounds specifically referred 
to in the proviso appended thereto. 
16. Section 2(i) of the Rent Act defines the "premises". Section 
3(c) states, "nothing in the Act shall apply to any premises whether 
residential or not, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 3 ,500/-". Sub-section 
(2) of Section 7 puts an embargo on the landlord not to recover from the 
tenant any amount of tax on the building or land
imposed in respect of 
the premises occupied by the tenant. This provision is as under: 
"(2) Where a landlord pays in respect of the premises any charge 
for electricity or water consumed in the premises or any other 
charge levied by a local authority having jurisdiction in the area 
which is ordinarily payable by the tenant, he may recover from 
the tenant the amount so paid by him; but the landlord shall not 
recover from the tenant whether by means of an increase in rent 
or otherwise the amount of any tax on building or land imposed in 
respect of the premises occupied by the tenant.'' 
17. Section 50 of the Rent Act bars the civil court to entertain any 
suit or proceedings insofar as it relates to the fixation of standard rents 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
in relation to any premises to which the Rent Act applies or to eviction of 
any tenant therefrom or to any other matter which the controller is 
G 
empowered by or under the said Act. 
18. It is also relevant to notice two provisions of the NDMC Act 
namely; sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 67 which are as under: 
H
1054 
A 
B 
C. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
"67. Apportionment of liability for property tax when the 
premises are let or sub-let.-(!) If any land or building assessed 
to prope11y tax is let, and its rateable value exceeds the amount of 
rent payable in respect thereof to the person upon whom under 
the provision of section 66 the said tax is leviable, that person 
shall be entitled to receive from his tenant the difference between 
the amount of the property tax levied upon him and the amount 
which would be leviable upon him ifthe said tax was calculated 
on the amount of rent payable to him. 
(2) ................ . 
(3)Any person entitled to receive any sum under this section shall 
have, for the recovery thereof, the same rights and remedies as if 
such sum were rent payable to him by the person from whom he 
is entitled to receive the same." 
19. Yet another provision which requires considemtion is Section 
4.11 of the NDMC Act, which reads as under: 
"411. Other laws not to be disregarded.- Save as provided in 
this Act nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as 
authorising the disregard by the Council or the Chairperson or 
any municipal officer or other municipal employee of any laws 
for the time being in force." 
20. While the normal principle is that the latter enactment will 
prevail in cases where the latter enactment has a non-obstante clause, 
that is, giving it overriding effect and secondly, if it is also held to be a
special enactment with regard to the matter in issue. In the instant 
case, the earlier enactment has a non-obstante clause in Section 14 
which grants protection to the tenant from being evicted from any 
premises "notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other 
law or contract, no order of decree for the recovery of possession of 
any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the 
landlord against a tenant." Thus the earlier enactment which is a special 
enactment has a non-obstante clause and the latter enactment which is 
not a special enactment as far as landlord tenant issue is concerned and 
the same does not have a non-obstante clause and in fact, has a section 
namely Section 411 which provides that other laws not to be disregarded.
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1055 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.] 
21. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J. Bahadur A 
and Ors., ( 1981) 1 SCC 315, this Court was considering a conflict between 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Life Insurance Act, 1956. It 
was held that so far as matters concerning industrial dispute are concerned, 
the Industrial Disputes Act would prevail over the latter enactment i.e. 
Life Insurance Corporation oflndiaAct. 
22. In Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Viswa Co-operative Housing 
Society Ltd. and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 288, it was held that Rent Act 
B 
of 1947 will prevail over the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 
1960, so far as the protection of the tenant from eviction is concerned. 
Here also, both the Acts held a 11011-obstante clause but still the earlier 
enactment was held to cover the field and hence, was to be given primacy 
C 
over the latter enactment. 
23. As seen from the abovementioned judgments, this Court has 
held that an earlier enactment will prevail over a latter enactment even 
if, there is a no11-obsta11te clause in the latter enactment, if it were to be 
held that the earlier enactment is a special enactment on the particular 
D 
subject being in issue. 
24. Assuming that the latter enactment prevailing over the earlier 
enactment were to apply to this case, the two enactments have to be 
harmoniously construed so as to ensure that the latter enactment does 
not cause violence
to the intent of the earlier enactment. 
E 
In St Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992) l SCC 558, it 
has been held thus:-
"140 .... The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be 
read in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and the 
principle of harmonious construction merely applies the rule that 
where there is a general provision oflaw dealing with a subject, 
and a special provision dealing with the same subject, the special 
prevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way the 
result would be that the special provision would be wholly 
defeated". 
Similarly, in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 
( 1999) 7 SCC 76 this Court has held as under: 
F 
G 
H
1056 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 12 S.C.R. 
"10. While determining the question whether a statute is a general 
or a special one. focus must be on the principal subject-matter 
coupled with a particular perspective with reference to the 
intendment of the Act. Keeping in mind this basic principle, we 
will have to examine the provisions of the two Acts to find out 
whether it is possible to construe harmoniously the provisions of 
Section 4 of the Finance Act and Section 49 of the Sugarcane 
Act .......... " 
25. In Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan v. Binani Cements 
Limited and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 319, it was held that when a general 
law and a special law dealing with the same aspect dealt with by the 
general law arc in question, the general law to the extent dealt with by 
the special law is impliedly repealed. 
26. The object of the Rent Act is to provide protection to tenants 
who under common law, including Transfer of Prope1ty Act could be 
evicted from the premises let out to them at any time by the landlord on 
the termination of their tenancy. It restricts the right of the landlord to 
evict the tenant at their will. It is a special law in relation to landlord and 
tenant issue. Therefore, the Rent Act has to prevail insofar as landlord 
and tenant issue is concerned. 
27. Let us now consider the judgments relied upon by Shri 
Dushyant Dave. In Karnani Property Ltd. (supra) by agreement of 
the parties, the rent fixed included payment of the
additional amenities 
and services. In Bombay Municipal Corporation (supra) the question 
relating to eviction of a tenant has not been considered. In Raju Kakara 
Shetty (supra) the statutory right to recover the education cess in respect 
of demised premises from the occupant-tenant was quantified by 
agreement of the parties. In D.C. Bhatia (supra) this Court has 
considered the validity of Section 3( c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 
1958. In Calcutta Gujarati Education Society (supra) this Court has 
not considered the eviction of a tenant nor the interplay between a 
provision similar to sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Rent Act and 
G 
Section 231 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 which is 
pari materia with Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act. Hence, these 
judgments have no application to the facts of the instant case. 
H 
28. Therefore, we are of the view that though the Rent Act is an 
earlier Act when compared to the NDMC Act, it is a special enactment
ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL 
1057 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.) 
with regard to the matter in issue and has a non-obstante clause. The 
A 
NDMC Act is not a special enactment insofar as landlord-tenant issue is 
concerned and it contains Section 411 which provides that other laws 
not to be disregarded. Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act merely gives a 
right to recover the tax in respect of the premises as rent. It does not 
override the Rent Act insofar as obviating the effect of Section 7(2) of B 
the Rent Act. In our opinion, the tax recoverable from the tenant under 
Section 67(3) of the NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant 
cannot be considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of 
seeking eviction/ejectment of the respondent who defaults in payment 
of such recoverable tax as rent. 
29. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed 
with no orders as to costs. 
Atikit Gyun 
Appeal dismissed. 
c