PRECISION STEEL AND El~GINEERING WORKS AND ANOTEER v. .PREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL

Jmmediate possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six G months from the date of the order. Sub-s. (2) of s. 25C reduces the period of.six months to two months.' ·

One of tlJ,e dominant objects with which the legislation was introduced was to mitigate the hardship of landlords who were in . - . bonafide requireOJ<;Q\ of \hier resiq~q\ial premises·an4 h~c! made an

, l'Rl!CISION STEEL v: PREM DEVA (Sen, J.) A applicaiion for eviction under s. 14 (I) (e), or under s. 14A, and to obtain immediate possessipn of such premises without well-known travails of our procedural ·1aws ..· The whole. object was to confine the trial only to such cases where the tenant had such a defence as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an· order for eviction · · under s. 14 (I) (e), or under s. 14A, and to provide for a summary procedure of trial of trial of such applications. The ,words '.'if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts" used in sub-s. (5) of s. 25B of the Act must therefore'take their colour from the con· text in which they appear.

. It is to mitigat~ the rigour of the law that Parliament in its c wisdom introduced Chapter IHA and made the summary procedure applicable to the trial of applications. under s. 14 (I) (e), or under s. 14A. It seeks to strike a balance betweeen the_ competing needs of a landlord and tenant and has therefore provided that the tenant shall have a right to apply for leave 'to contest. Sub-s. (4) of s. 25B provides that the tenant shall· not contest the prayer of eviction D from the premises uriless he has filed an . affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for_eviction and obtains leave from the Controller. Under sub-s. (5) of s. 25B, the Controller is enjoined t<i give the tenant leave to contest the application only if the affidavit -filed' by the tenant disC!oses such facts as would ·disen- . title a landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of posses- E · sion of the premises on the ground specified in cl. (e) of the proviso -tO'sub-s. {I) of s. 14, or under ,•. s. 13, or , under s. 14A.

' In Sarwan Singh & Anr. v: Kasturi Lal,(') Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) after stating that the object of s. 14A was to confer on a class of landlords the right to recover "immediate · - F -~ possession of the premises" observes :

"Whatever be the merits of that philosophy, the theory is that an allottee from the Central Government or a ·local authority should not be at the mercy- bf law's delays while being faced with instant eviction by his landlord ·save on G payment of what· in practice is penal rent. Faced with a Hobson's choice, to quit the,official residence or pay the market rent for it, the.allottee had in turn to be afforded a quick and expeditious .remedy against .his o)Vn tenant. H (1) (lm] 2 S.C.R. 421_.

536 SUPllBMB COURT 11.BPOll.TS (1983] I s.c.11.. A With that end in view it was provided that nothing, not even the Slum Clearance Act, shall stand in the way of the allottee from evicting his tenant by resorting to the sum- mary procedure ·prescribed by Chapter IIIA. The tenant is even deprived of the elementary right of a defendant to defend a proceeding brought against him,- save· on B obtaining leave of the Rent Controller. If the leave is refused, by s. 25B (4) the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be J

admitted by the tenant and the landlord is entitled to an order for eviction. No appeal or second appeal lies against that order. Section 25B (8) denies that right and provides c instead for a revision to the High Court whose jurisdic- tion is limited io finding out whether the order complained of is according to law."

" The provisions of Chap.ter IIIA have been enacted with· the D object, in the words of Chandrachud, J.,., "to confer a real, effective and immediate right on a class of landlords to obtain possession of premises let out by tliem to their tenants." The same considera. tions are applicable to the disposal of applications nuder Cl. (e) of the proviso to sub-s.(1) of s. 14. The right to recover immediate possession which accrues under s. 14A. of the Act is equated by E Parliament with the landlord's bona fide requirement of residential premises for his own occupation or for the occupation of the members of his family under s. 14(1)(e). Sub-s. (5) of 8. 25B gove,rns the disposal of both an_d therefore must be interpreted in a manner which will carry out the legislative mandate.

F Under the scheme of the Act, the grant or refusal of leave under sub-s. (5)°of s. 25B of the Act, is the most crucial stage of the proceedings initiated ·on. an application for eviction ·by the landlord under s. 14(1 )(e), or under s. l 4A, at which stage the Controller has to decide whether the application should proceed G to trial, The Controller obviously cannot. come to a decision as to whether or not leave to contest should be granted under s. sub-s. (5) of :25B without affording the parties an opportunity 9f a hearing. The Controller is not a Court but be has the trappings of a Court, and be must conform to the rules of natural justice. It. H must 1therefore follow as a necessary corollary that the Controller has the duty to hear the parties on the question whether leave to

l>RliCISION STilEt•v. PREM DEVA (Sen, J.) S31 contest should or should not be granted under sub-s; (5) of s. 25B .A

. ' of the Act .

Once it is conceded that the landlord has a right to be· heard · on the question of grant of leave to contest under sub-s. (5) ·or s. 25B, it must follow as a necessary implication that he has a B ·right to refute the. facts ~lleg~d by the tenant in his affidavit filed

- under sub-s. (4) of s. 25B and to· show that' the affidavit fileil under under sub-s. (4) of s. 25B .by the tenant does not represent true facts. The Controller is therefore bound toe give the landlord an opportunity to meet the allegations made by the tenant. The Controller-must apply. his l)lind not only to the averments made by c the landlord in his application for eviction, but also to the facts alleged by ihe tenant in his affidavit for leave to contes_t as well as the facts disclosed by the landlord in his affidavit in rejoinder, besides the other material on record i.e. the documents filed by the parties in support of their respective claims in order to come to a D conclusion whether the requirements' of sub-s. (I) of s. 25B are fulfilled. .It is difficult to lay down any rule of universal application for each case must depend on its own facts.. To ask the Controller · to confine only to the affidavit filed by the tenant is to ask him not to apply his mind in a judicial manner even if he feels that the· · justice of the case so demands. The Controller must endeavour to resolve. the competing claims of landlord and tenant. to the grant or refusal of leave under sub-s. (5) of s. 25B of the Act, by ·finding.a solutfon which is just and fair t~ both the parties.

It is not suggested for a moment that the proceedings initiated on an application by the landlord under s. l4(l)(e), or under "-<. . s. 14A, must undergo trial at iwo stages, Under sub-s. (5) of s. · 25B, the Controller must prima facie be satisfied on a perusaI of I.he affidavits ·of the parties to the proceedings and the other · material on record that the facts alleged by the tenant are such as would diseniitle' the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in Cl. (e) of the proviso to sub-s. (I) of s. 14, .or under s~ 14A. The word 'disentitle' is a strong word, and the Controller must he satisfied that the tenant has such a defence as would defeat the claim of the landlord under· Cl. (e) of the proviso. of sub-s. (I) of s. 14, or 8 . . under s. I 4A. It cannot be that the Controller would set down

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1983) 1. S.C.R.

A the application for trial merely on perusal. of the affidavit filed by the tenant without applying his mind to the pleadings of the parties and the material on · record. If he finds that the pleadings are s~cb. as would entail a trial, then the Controller must grant the ·- tenant leave to contest as the words "shall grant to the tenant J~a've to contest" in sub's. (5) of s. 25B. make 'the gr1111t of leave B obligatory ..

It is also necessary to emphasize that the scope of sub-s. (5) of s. 25B_ is ·rc:.stricted- and the test of "triable issues" u~der order XXXVII, r. 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not a applicable, as the language of the two provisions is different. The use of the word 'such' in sub-s. (5) or" s. 25B implies that the Controller_ bas the power to limit the grant of leave to a particular ground. A tenant may ta:ke all kinds of pleas in defence. The whole object of sub,s. (5) of s. 25B was to prevent' the ta1'ing of. · frivolous pleas by tenants to protract the trial. · Where' the tenant seeks leave to contest the application for eviction under s. !4(1)(e), or under s. 14A, be must file an affidavit under sub-s. (4) of s. 25B raising his defence which must be clear, specific and positive. The defence must also be bona fide and if true, . must result in the dismissal of landlord's application. Defences of negative character which are intended to put the landlord to _proof or are vague, or are raised mala fide only to gain time and protract the proceedings, are not of the kind which will entitle the tenant to the grant of ·the leave.· The Controller cannot set down the application for hearing· without making an order in terms of sub-s. (5) of s. 25B. The trial must be confined only to such grounds as would disentitle the landlord to any relief. Such an order for the grant or refusal of leave to contest under sub-s. (5) of s. 25 of the Act cannot be made without affording to the parties an opportunity of a hearing /-·. which, as we all know, does not only mean the right io address the Controlle_r but also consid.eration of the material placed before him · by both the parties..

I would therefore, for my part, refrain from placing a literal and mechanical construction of sub-s. (5) of s. 25B of the Act as it conflicts with the essential requirements 'of fajr play and natural justice which the Legislature never intended·· to throw overboard. In my view, the landlord has-a right to be afforded an opportunity ·ff

l>RBCISION STBEt v. PREM DBVA (Sen, !.) 539

to meet the allegations made by the tenant in the affidavit for leave A to contest. and filed under sub-s. (4) of s. 25B and there is a corres- polldiog duty· imposed on the Controller to hear the parties on the question whether such leave should· or should not be granted und~r sub-s. (5) thereof and apply his mind to the pleadings of the· parties and the material OD record. ' . B H.L.C. Appeal allowed.