Case: Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Bhargava

2. The tenant, Ravi Dutt Sharma, was inducted into the suit premises as far back as 1945. The landlord Ratan Lal Bhargava applied under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Clearance Act (‘Slumfor short) before the Competent Authority for permitting him to institute a suit for eviction of the appellant but that application was dismissed on July 28, 1973. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on October 4, 1974. Thereafter the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (‘Rentfor short) on April 13, 1979. Under the provisions of the Rent Act as amended in 1976 it is incumbent upon the defendant-tenant to apply for leave to defend a suit for eviction before entering contest. The tenant applied for such leave but the same was rejected and an order of his eviction was passed on September 14, 1979. A revision by the tenant to the High Court was dismissed and that has led to the appeal to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
11. It is, therefore, clear from the new provision in the Amending Act that the procedure indicated therein was intended to have overriding effect and all procedural laws were to give way to the new procedure. Applications under Section 14(1)(e), therefore, clearly fell within the protective umbrella of the new procedure in Chapter IIIA.12. An identical view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the Case of Smt. Krishna Devi Nigam & Ors. v. Shyam Babu & Ors., 17 (1980) DLT 344 (DB)=AIR 1980 Delhi 165. In this decision it has been clearly held that the provisions of Section 25A cannot be controlled by the provisions of the Slum Act. We fully approve and endorse the ratio laid down in that decision as it is in conformity with the consistent opinion of this Court.13. On a consideration, therefore, of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law referred to above, we reach the followingThat sections 14A, 25A, 25b and 25C of the Rent Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and in view of the non-obstante clause these provisions would override the existing law so far as the new procedure is concerned;(2) That there is no difference either on principle or in law between section 14(1)(e) and 14A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations;(3) That the procedure incorporated in Chapter IIIA of the Amending Act into the Rent Act is in public interest and is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;(4) 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 19(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coining within Section 14(1)(e) or 14A of the Rentare, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was correct in rejecting applications of the tenants for setting aside the order of eviction.