JAGAN NATH versus RAM KISHAN DASS AND ANR.

JAGAN NATH versus RAM KISHAN DASS AND ANR.

The proviso to section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is attracted only if it is shown that the tenant had obtained the benefit under that section in an earlier proceeding. Since the landlord had withdrawn the earlier ejectment petition for a formal defect, and the tenant did not obtain immunity against an order of possession by virtue of compliance under section 15, the tenant did not obtain the benefit under section 14(2). Therefore, he is entitled to the protection under section 14(2) in the present proceeding.

Parties
Appellant: Jagan Nath; Respondent: Ram Kishan Dass and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal by Special Leave / Final Appeal to Supreme Court; Judgment on Appeal Against Delhi High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction for Arrears of Rent, Default in Payment of Rent, Benefit Under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, Withdrawal of Ejectment Petition
Rent Control Landlord Tenant Law Eviction for Arrears of Rent Default in Payment of Rent Benefit Under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act Withdrawal of Ejectment Petition

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagan Nath

Appellant

Ram Kishan Dass and Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal by Special Leave / Final Appeal to Supreme Court; Judgment on Appeal Against Delhi High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether benefit under section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, can be invoked again if the tenant did not obtain such benefit in earlier proceedings withdrawn by the landlord
  2. 2 Interpretation and scope of proviso to section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso to section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is attracted only if it is shown that the tenant had obtained the benefit under that section in an earlier proceeding. Since the landlord had withdrawn the earlier ejectment petition for a formal defect, and the tenant did not obtain immunity against an order of possession by virtue of compliance under section 15, the tenant did not obtain the benefit under section 14(2). Therefore, he is entitled to the protection under section 14(2) in the present proceeding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Delhi High Court set aside.
  • Judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal restored, with modification: period of one month for depositing arrears of rent to be computed from the date of this Supreme Court judgment.