Case: Jai Narain Vs. Kishen Chand

1. This is an appeal by a tenant who bad rented a shop No. 2687 in Kinari Bazar, Delhi from the respondent on Rs. 13.50 P. per month. In those premises be was selling Usha sewing machines and fans. It appears that the level of the shop was too high from the road and his clients were troubled in going to his shop and so he lowered the level and thereby altered the premises to suit his convenience. The landlord thereupon filed a suit against him for his eviction under Section 13 (1) (k) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The suit was filed on November 13, 1957. The trial Court ordered on February 19, 1959, ejectment and payment of Rs. 145 as arrears of rent. An appeal against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the appellate authority on November 16, 1959. A revision application was then filed by the tenant on March 25, 1960. During the course of that revision he invoked the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which had come into force on February 9, 1959 and relied upon Section 14 (1) of the new Act read with Section 57. Previously he had not relied upon the new Act although the Act had been in force during the pendency of the previous proceedings. The High Court acting under Section 14 (1) (j) and sub-sec. (10) of the same section, gave him the alternative of paying compensation in the sum of Rs. 500/- which it appears that the landlord himself had assessed as the damages caused by the act of the tenant. The landlord later filed an application for review of the order and pointed out that the new Act was not applicable to the case in view of the first proviso of Section 57 sub-section (2). The High Court thereupon granted the review and reversed its earlier order and ordered the eviction of the tenant.

Court's reasoning:
We are concerned only with the first of the two provisos on which much dispute has arisen in this case. That proviso reads as follows :"Provided that in any such suit or proceeding for the fixation of standard rent or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises to which Section 54 does not apply, the Court or other authority shall have regard to the provisions of this Act:" This proviso contains a proviso within itself which excepts the case of premises to which Section 54 of the Act does not apply. That section provides as followsin this Act shall affect the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, or the Slum Areas (In government and Clearance) Act, 1956 or the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act,effect of the proviso which we have quoted above is variously described by Counsel on oppositeTo begin with, it must be noticed that the proviso speaks of two things, namely, the fixation of standard rent and the eviction of a tenant from any premises. The words "from any premises" cannot be connected with the phrase "for the fixation of standard rent, because then the preposition would have been "of any premises" or "for any premises" and not "from any premises." This means that the first phrase has to be read as complete in itself beginning from the words for the fixation" and ending with the words, "standard rent". The second phrase then reads "or for the eviction of a tenant from any premises." The words "from any premises" go very clearly with the words "eviction of a tenant" and not with the words "any suit orto Mr. Agarwala that phrase must be connected with the words "in any such suit or proceeding.t was contended before us that this legislation was intended to soften action against tenants still further and that the policy of the law had been to give more and more protection to the tenants and we must therefore read the statute in consonance with thatDelhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Section 13 (1)(k) of thatthe suits contain two kinds of matters, namely, fixation of standard rent and eviction of a tenant from any premises, we have to turn to the provisions of the statutes to which Section 54 refers, namely, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 and the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956. The first two do not deal at all with the fixation of fair rent and the third speaks of fair rent, but it does not provide for its fixation. It would be pointless to use the language any suit or proceeding to which Sec. 54 does not apply in relation to fixation of standard rent. It follows therefore that the phrase "to which Section 54 does not apply really governs premises. Read in that way, all the three Acts fall in line, because they provide for premises and not for fixation of standard rent. The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 and the Delhi Tenants (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956 all deal with premises and property and therefore the phrase "to which Section 54 does not apply" is connected with the word "premises".That is the view which the High Court has taken and we think rightly. We proviso did not apply and the matter had to be governed by the old Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 which had beenwould be an argument to consider if the language of the statute was not quite clear. But the language is clear enough to show that the proviso applies only to those cases in which Section 54 cannot be made applicable.It is admitted before us that this area is subjected to the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. If that is so, then, on the terms of the proviso on which much reliance is placed by Mr. Agarwala, the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be taken into consideration. They are to be taken into consideration only in those cases to which the Acts mentioned in Section 54 do not apply, that is to say, in respect of premises not governed by those statutes. Since this shop is governed by one of the statutes, the proviso has no application. The High Courts view was therefore right.