SARWAN SINGH & Anr. v. KASTURI LAL

Sri Ram Narain v. Tlze Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd. [1956] S.C.R. 603 followed. (b) Yet another test is that the later enactment must prevail. over the earlier one. Section 14A and Chapter IHA having been enacted with effect December 1, 197S are later enactments in reference to s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act which was placed on the statute book with effect from February 28, 1965 and i):i reference to s. 39 ot the same Act whicb came into force in 1956 when the Act was passed. The Legislature gave overriding effect "· 14-A and Chapter IIIA with the knowledge that ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act contained non-obstante clauses of equal efficacy. [434A-BJ CivrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1084 of 1976. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th September, 1976 of the Delhi High Court in C. R. No. 390/76 S. L. Bhatia and H. K. Puri for the Appellants. Pogeshwar Prasad and (Miss) Rani Arora and Meera Bali Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This appeal by special leave raises a question of some interest and importance for decision. The question is whether the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, override those of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1953. If they do, no person can institute any suit or proceeding for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. For the sake of brevity we will refer to these two enactments as the "Slum Clearance Act" and the "Delhi Rent Act" respectively. The respondent is a government servant employed in the Railway Ministry (Railway Board) and was in that capacity occupying quarters allotted to him by the Government at Nanakpura, New Delhi. By a letter dated December 24, 1975 the Assistant Director of Estates called upon the respondent to vacate the quarters on or before December 31, 1975 on the ground that he owned a residential house and was, there- fore', liable to vacate the premises allotted to him by the Government. The respondent was paying to the Government a monthly rent of Rs. 65.05 but since he did not vacate the premises as required, the Government started charging him after January 1, 1976 a monthly rent of Rs. 509.50 at the market rate. B c D E F G The respondent ·owns a house bearing No. 5014, Ward No. XII, at Roshanara Road, New Delhi. A part of that house is in the occu pation of the appellant~ at a monthly rent of Rs. 6.25. On being asked to vacate the official quarters, the respondent gave to the H appellants a notice to quit and followed it up by filing an application for eviction against them under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act. On March 12, 1976 the appellants filed before the Rent Controllor 11-1546 SCI/76 A B c D E F G H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2.S.C.R. an affidavit under s. 25B( 4) of the Delhi Rent Act, setting out the grounds on which they sought to contest the application for ev .ction and asking for leave to contest it. One of such grounds was that the application was not maintainable since the respondent had not obtained permission of the competent authority under s. 19 of the Slum Clear ance Act, the house being situated in a slum area. By his order d•ated April 28, 1976 the Rent Controller rejected the application of appellants for leave to contest the ejectment application filed by the respondent. As a sequiter, the Rent Controller passed an order on the same date stating that since the appellants' application for leave to contest the ejectment application was respondent was entitled to a decree for eviction. The appellants were asked to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months of the order. rejected, Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellants filed Civil Revision Application No. 390 of 1976 in the Delhi High Court, under the proviso to s. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Act. By reason of s. 25B(8), no appeal or second appeal lies against an order the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Rent Con- troller in accordance with the procedure specified in s. 25B. The proviso confers power on the High Court, for the purposes of satis fying itself that an order made by the Rent Controller under s. 25B is according to law, to call for the record of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. The revision application wai; heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who, following his own earlier• judgment in Civil Revision Application No. 280 of 1976, dismissed it, giving rise to this appeal. A question was raised before the High Court as to whether at the relevant time the respondent was in occupation of the premise~ allotted to him by the Government, but it was not disputed before us that he was in occupation of the premises allotted to him by the Government when he filed the present proceedings for eviction of the appellants. Thus, the only question which arises before us is whether, ·~the premises being situated in the slum area, the application for evic tion filed by the respondent is not maintainable for the reason tha.t before filing it he had not obtained permission of the competent authority as required by s. 19 (1) of the Slum Clearance Act. The landlord-tenant relationship in Delhi. was governed formerly by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 38 of 1952. That Act in so far as it applied to the Union territory of Delhi, was repealed by s. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958. This latter Act was passed in order expeditious adiudication of proceedings between landlords and tenants· to provi~e for the determination of standard rent payable by tenants; and to give to the tenants a large measure of protection aP-ainst eviction. Section 14 of the Act of 1958 affords to tenants substan tially the same measure of protection which was available to them under section 13 of the Act of 1952. to provide a suitable machinery / ' _...... _ _.._ .- - .SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.) 425 tenants for eviction of While the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act of 1952 was in !force the Parliament enacted the· Slum Areas (Improvement and Clear~nce) Act 96 of 1956, in order "to provide for the improve ment and clear~nce of slum areas in certain Union territories" inclu ·ding Delhi, and "for the protection of tenants in such areas eviction". Section 19 ( 1) of that Act, as originally enacted, made .all decrees and orders in slum areas unexecutable, except with the previous permission in writing of t~e competent authority. The vires of section 19 was challanged m Jyoti Pershad v. The Administrator for the Union territory of Delhi(') on the ground that it violated articles 14 and 19 ( 1) ( f) of Constitution. The challenge was repelled by this Court on the ground that section 19 did not offend against the equal protection of guaranteed by art. 14, that section 19(1) gave enough guidance to the competent authority in the use of his discretion and restrictions imposed by section 19 could not be said to be unreason .able. Adverting to the non-obstante clauses in secs. 19 ( 1) . and .39 of the Slum Clearance Act and in sec. 38 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952, the Court observed that the provisions of the former Act must, in respect of buildings in slum areas, operate in addition to the provisions of the latter Act. Section 19 (1) of the Slum Clearance Act was amended by Act 43 of 1964 which came into force on February 28, 1965. Whereas under the unamended provision no person could execute any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building in a slum area without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority, under the amended provisim1 no person can, except with such permission, institute after the amendment any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area. If such a decree or order was obtained before the amendment it cannot be executed without the requisite permission. For a proper appreciation of the question involved in this appeal, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the two Acts under consideration. We will refer first to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act and then to those of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The former Act beiµg of the year 1956 is anterior in point of time to the latter which was passed in 1958 but .the more decisive provisions of the latter Act with which we are directly concerned in this appeal were incorporated in that Act in 1976. The relevant provisions of the Slum Clearance Act are these : "S. 19. Proceedings for eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the competent authority.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other the time being in force, no person shall, except with previous permission in writing of the competent authority,- the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act ' ( a) institute, after the commencement of (!) (1962] 2 S.C.R. 125. A B c D E F G H \ '--" • A I B c D E F 426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 S.C.R. 1964, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or (b) Where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for thf: eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order. (2) Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section ( 1) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and con taining such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of such application, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission. ( 4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namely : - (a) whether alternative accommodation within means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improve- ment and clearance of the slum areas; ( c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed. (5) where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the appli cant." "S. 39. Act to override other laws.-The prov1s10ns of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law." Having noticed the releyant provisions of the Slum Clearance Act we must refer to the following provisions of the Delhi Rent Act: G "S. 14(1) Notwithstanding anything the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by 11ny court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for II SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, l.) .(27 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more -0f the following grounds only, namely:- (e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for -any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitabl• . residential accommodation; ( 6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub-section ( 1) on the ground specified in clause ( e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years has elapsed from .acquisition. the date of (7) Where an order for the recovery of possession of any prell)ises is made on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section ( 1) the landlord_ shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration 0f 'a period of six months from the date of the order." ·"s. 14A. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to certain persons.-( 1) Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential premises ·allotted to him by the Central Government or any local autho- . rity is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by that Government or authority, to vacate such ·residential accommodation, or in default, · to incur certain ill the Union obligations, on the ground that he owns, territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his ·own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such order, to such landlord, -notwithstanding anything oontained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time bem,11; • in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), cus tom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately possession of any premises kt out by him: .... " .--- . ·"S.25A. Provisions of this Chapter to have overridin1 effect.- The provisions of this Chaptei: or any rule made ·thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anytl1ing incoii- . sistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in aiy other law'.for the time being in force." "'25B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction.--(1) Every application by a landlord for the -recovery of possession of any premises on the ground speci- 'fied in clause ( e) of the proviso to sub-section ( 1) of section A B c D E. G H \ -.... - - - ~--- ----- 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 S.C.1'. 14, or under section 14A, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. ( 4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served. (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affi davit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for evic tion shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the to an order for eviction on the applicant shall be entitled ground aforesaid. ( 5) The Controller shall give to the. tenant leave' to contest the application if the ·affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause ( e) of the proviso to sub-sec tion (1) of section 14, or under section 14A. (6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable .... " "25C. Act to have effect in a modified form in relation to certain persons.-(1) Nothing contained in sub-section (6) of section 14 shall apply to a landlord who, being a person in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority is required by, ar in pursuance of, an order made by that Government or authority to vacate such residential accommodation, or, in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns a residential. accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wi; fe or dependent child in the llnion terri tory of Delhi. In the case of a landlord who, being a person of the (2) category specified in sub-section ( 1) , has obtained, on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A, an order for the eviction of a tenant from any premises, the provisions of sub section (7) of section 14 shall have effect as if for the words "six months" occurring therein, the words "two months" were substituted". "S. 54. Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions. of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, or (Improvement and Clearance) Act,. the Slum Areas A B c D E F G H SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.) -42!') 1956, or the Delhi Tenants' (Temporary Protection) Act, 1956.'' Sections 14A, 25A, 25B, and 25C were introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which came into force on ~cem­ ber 1,, 1975. The Ordinance was later replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 18 of 1976, which was given effect from the date of the ordinance. Sections 25A, 25B and 25C are contained in a newly introduced chapter, IIIA, called "Summary Trial of Cer tain Applications". Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised the following points : (1) Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Act does nothing more than to confer a right on a class of landlords to sue for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, which right was not available to that class under clause ( e) of the proviso to s. 14 of that Act. A person occupying premises allotted to him by the Govern ment coul~ not before the enactment of s. 14A evict his own tenant because, s,o long as he was in possession of the accommodation allotted to him by the Government he could not satisfy the require ment of clause (e) that he should have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation; (2) Since s. 14A merely furnishes one more cause of action in addition ~o the existing ones for which a fandlord can obtain po!>Session o~, the premises let out by him, there is no reason why the application of the Slum Clearance Act should be excluded in regard to proceedings arising out of the right conferred by s. 14A, particularly when the right conferred by the various clauses of the proviso to.fl. 14(1) is plainly subject to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act; (3) Section 54 of the Delhi Rent Act expressly saves the operation of the Slum Clearance Act and since s. 14A is porated into the Delhi Rent Act, the Slum Clearance Act would! prevail over it; ( 4) In view of the non-obstante clauses contained in ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act and s. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act, every proceeding for eviction of a tenant under the Delhi Rent Act is, subject to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act; ( 5) The Slum Clearance Act being a special act, the object of which is to afford an additional protection to tenants residing in slum areas, its provisions must have precedence over the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act which is in the nature of a general enactment governing the landlord-tenant relation The Slum Clearance Act applies only to notified localities in ship. Delhi while the Delhi Rent Act is of general application to the entire territory of Delhi; ( 6) If it were intended that despite the provisions of 11. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act, proceedings arising out of a right conferred by ~. 14A should not be subordinated to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act, nothing would have been easier legislature than to provide ins. 14A itself or in the newly introduced Chapter IITA that to such proceedings the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act would have no application; and (7) To deny precedence to the Slum Clearance Act over the Delhi Rent Act in matters arising out of s. 14A or Chapter IIIA is to repeal the former Act by implication, pro tanto. Law difilavonrs the doctrine of implied repeal. for the A B c D E F G \ -,-4 A B c D E F G 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977J 2 S.C.R. · Having considered these submissions carefully we are unable accept any one of them. It would not be conducive to an adequate exposition or a proper understanding of the issues involved in the case to consider the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants seriatim. The points raised by the appellants' counsel are interdependent and since they depend for their validity on the thesis that the Slum Clear- ance Act must in any event have precedence over the Delhi Rent Act in all matters arising under the latter Act, it would be helpful to deal straightaway with that contention. Section 14A, and Chapter IHA containing ss. 25A, 25B and 25C, were introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which was later replaced by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 18 of 1976. The amending Act was glven effect from the date on which the ordinance was published, namely, from December. 1, 1975. By s. 25B every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause ( e) of the proviso to s. 14(1) or under s. 14A has be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in the section. Section 25A, which is the first the collocation of sections appearing in Chapter IHA, provides that the provisions of that Chapter or any rule made tjiereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained else where in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time r·eing in The marginal note to s. 25A reads : "provisions of this Chap force. ter to have overriding effect." Section 25A may for convenience be split up irito two parts, ignoring for the present purpose the reference to In the first place, that section pro- rules made under Chapter IHA. vides that the provisions of Chapter JIIA containing ss. 25A, 25B and 25C shall have an overriding effect over every other provision of the Delhi Rent Act which is inconsistent with anything contained in Chap ter IIIA. Secondly, s. 25A provides that the provisions of Chapter IIIA shall also have overriding effect over anything inconsistent there with contained in any other law for the time being in force. It is patent that by virtue of the first part of s. 25A, the provisions of Chapter IHA must prevail over the provisions of s'. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act. The reason is that to the exten~ to which s. 54 saves the operation of the Slum Clearance Act, it is inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter IIIA which prescribes a special procedure for dealing with applications for eviction filed under clause (e) of the proviso to s. 14(1) or under s. 14A of the Delhi Rent Act. It is equally clear that by reason of the second part of s. 25A also, the provisions of Chapter IIIA would the Slum Clearance Act. The reason prevail over an over is that the relevant provisions of riding procedure be instituted without the previous permission in writing of the compe tent authority. Sections 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act. are Act devise by reason of which no suit or proceeding can / those of t to that extent inconsistent with the procedure prescribed by Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act and have to be subordinated to it. H The object of s. 14A, as shown by its marginal note, is to confer a right on certain landlords to recover "immediate possession of pre mises" belonging to them and which are in the possession of their / . ..., .. \ ~ SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, .T.) 431 In the significant language of the_ marginal note., s1:1ch a right -tenants. is "to accrue" to a class of persons. The same concept is yursu~ and clarified in the body of s. 14A by prnviding that in the contmgenc1es mentioned in the section, a right will acc~·ue to the landl~rd,, "to re cover inunediately possession of any premises let out by him ;,. The argument which was presented to us on the use of the word ·1mme .diately" in the body of s. 14A has thus no substance. The right conferred by s. 14A has to be enforced in. accordance That 1s the. pres -with the procedure prescribed by Chapter IHA. cription of s. 25B (1). In order expressly to exclude the operat1?1:1 of .all provisions inconsistent with Chapter IIIA whether such prov1s1<;>ns are contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law like That the Slum Clearance Act, s. 25A was put on the statute book. section gives an over-riding effect to the provisions of Chapter IHA. .But the legislature did not rest content by providing merely that the procedural provisions contained in Chapter IIIA would have such .over-riding effect. It took the precaution of making an additional provision in s. 14A itself that on and from the date of the order passed by the Central Government or any local authority c:illing upon a per son to vacate the residential accommodation allotted to him, there shall accrue to such person a right to recover immediately the possession of any premises let out by him, "notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary .... " The provisions of s. 14A must, therefore, prevail over 11nythinJ?i contained elsewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in the Slum C1earance Act. In December 197 5 when Ordinance 24 of 197 5 was promulgated and later when the ordinance was replaced by Act 18 of 1976 legislature was cognisant that by reason of the provisions co!'ltained in s. 54 of the Delhi Rent Act and further by reason of those con tained in ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act, this latter Act would prevail over all other laws. As a result, no proceeding could be instituted for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a 5lum area nor could any decree or order be executed against the tenant of any such building or land, without the previous permission in writing of the competent authority. 'The object of the legislature in incorporating the 11011-obstante clause both in ss. 14A and 25A of the Delhi Rent Act was to free the pro .ceedings arising out of the right newly conferred by s. 14A and falling within Chapter IIIA, from the restraint imposed by s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act and from the operation of s. 39 thereof. The reason ·for releasing such proceedings from the pre-condition imposed by the Slum Clearance Act is that if the Government or the local authority asks a person to vacate the premises allotted to him by it on ground that he owns a residential accommodation in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child, a provision ought to be ·made to enable such a person to obtain immediately the possession -of his own house if it be in the occupation of a tenant. To subject -this facility to the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act, imder which A B c D E F G H A B c {) E F G H 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 S.C.Rr the c?mpetent authority _can ~rant the requisite permission only by appl;:mg the tests prescnbed m s. 19 ( 4), would be to make illusory the nght conferred by s. 14A on the a!lottee to obtain "immediate It is with a. P?Ssession" ?f the pre~ises let out by him to his tenant. view to making that nght truly effective that the legislature precedence over anything inconsistent therewith contained De~hi Rent Act itself or in any other Act like the Slum Clearance Act,. It JS. ~oteworthy that whereas s. 25A gives an overriding effect to the provlS!ons of Chapter IHA over anything therewith" c?ntain~d el~ewhere in the Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time ~emg m. force, s. _14A does not qualify the overriding effect of what 1s contamed therem, that is in is. 14A, in reference to anything "inconsistent" therewith contained either in the Delhi Rent Act itself or in any other law. Section 14A provides that there shall accrue a right to the lanlord to recover immediately possession of any premises. let out by him notwithstanding "anything" contained elsewhere in th;) In Delhi Rent Act or in any other law for the time being in force. the context, the word "anything'' would ordinarily mean "anything the contrary'', but the point of the matter is that the legislature hru; than one expre5sed its intention c:ear!y and unequivocally in more way, that the provisions of s. 14A and Chapter IHA of the Delhi Rent Act would have precedence over anything else contained in that Act itself or in any other law. "inconsistent Section 25C contained in Chapter IlIA points in the sallle direc tion. Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Act provides that where a. landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the· recovery of po1Ssession thereof shall lie under sub-section ( 1) on the ground specified in clause ( e) of the proviso thereto unless a period · of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition. A person who acquires by allotment any premises from the Central Govern ment or a local authority would, by reagon of s. 14(6), be disabled' from asking for poosession of his own house from his tenant under s. 14A, before the expiry of five years from the date of allotment. In order that the object of s. 14A may not be frustrated, s. 25C pro- vides that nothing contained in s. 14(6) shall apply to a laJ11dlord who is in possession of premises allotted to him by the Central Gov ernment or a local authority and who is required to vacate that dential accommodation. Section 14(7) of th'i Delhi Rent Act pro vides that where an order for the recovery of posse5sion is made on the ground specified in clause ( e) of tb.e proviso to sub-sec. (1) , the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain poosession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order. Sub-section (2) of s. 25C reduces the period of six months months, which again emphasises that the object of the legislature is to confer a real, effective and immediate right on a class ?f landlords to obtain possession of premises let out by them to tenants. Whatever be the merits of that philosophy, the theory that an allottee from the Central Government or a local authority should uot be at the mercy of law'IS delays while being fa~ed wit~ inst.ant evic tion by his landlord save on paym~nt of wh~t m pract1.ce . penal rent. Faced with a Robson's choice, to qmt the official restdenre or pay the market rent for it, the allottee had in turn to be afforded _, / i. .... ,r .. ' SARWAN SINGH v. KASTURI LAL (Chandrachud, J.)

#433. a quick and expeditious remedy against his own tenant. With 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 IIIA. re5orting to the summary procedure prescribed by Chapter The tenant is even deprived of the elementary right of a defendant tQ defend a proceeding brought against him, save on obtaining leave of If the leave is refused, by s. 25B ( 4) the state the Rent Controller. ment made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be 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 instead for a revision to the High Court whose jurisdiction is limited to finding out whether the order complained of is according to Jaw. Speaking generally, the object and purpose of a legislation assume greater relevance if the language of the Jaw is obscure and ambiguous. But, it must be stated that we have relferred to the object of the provi sions newly introduced into the Delhi Rent Act in 1975 nor for seeking light from it for resolving nn ambiguity, for there is none, but for a different purpose altogether. When two or more laws operate in the same field stating and each contains a non-obstante clause its provisions will over-ride those of any other law, stimulating incisive problems of intepretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration. A piquant ~ituation, like the one before us, arose in Shri Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd., (') the competing statutes being the Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended by Act 52 of 1953, Section and the Displaced persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951. 45A of the Banking Companies Act, which was introduced by amending Act of 1953, and s. '3 of tho Displaced Persons Act 1951 contained each a non-obstante clause, providing that certain provisions would have effect "notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith con- tained in any other law for the time being in force ...... " This Court resolved the conflict by considering the object and purpose of the two laws and giving precedence to the Banking Companies Act by obser - ving : "It is, therefore, desirable to determine 'the overriding effect of ·~·one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a given case, on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy under- lying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the language "(p. 615). Ase indicated by us, of the relevant provisions therein. the special and specific purpose which motivated the enactment s. 14A and Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act would be wholly frustrat ed if the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act requiring permission of the competent authority were to prevail over them. newly introduced provisions of the Delhi Rent Act must hold the field and be given full effect despite anything to the contrary contained the Slum Clearance Act. Therefore, t For resolving such inter se conflicts, one other test may also applied though the persuasive force of such a test is but one of (1) [1956] S.C.R. 603. c F G -.-·~··-· -· .. ' A .B ·C 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 2 S.C.R. factors which combine to give a fair meaning to the language @f law. That test is that the later enactment must prevail over earlier one. Section 14A and Chapter IIIA having been enacted with effect from December 1, 1975 are later enactments in reference to s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act which, in its present form, was placed on the statute book with effect from February 28, 1965 and in reference to s. 39 of the same Act, which came into force in 1956 when the Act itself was passed. The legislature gave over-riding effect to s. 14A and Chapter IIIA with· the knowledge that ss. 19 and 39 of the Slum Clearance Act contained non-obstante clauses of equal efficacy. There fore the later enactment must prevail over the former. The same test was mentioned with approval by this Comt in Shri Ram Narain's case (Supra) at pags 615. ,, \ \ Relying strongly on the finding at p. 151 in Jyoti Prusad's case (supra) that "the provisions of the special enactment, as the Act is, will in respect of the buildings in areas declared slum area:; operate in addition to the Rent Control Act," counsel for the appellants argues that the question of precedence as between the two Acts is concluded by that decision and we must therefore hold that the conflicting provisions of the two Acts must operate together with equal efficacy, with the result that the previous permission of the competent authority under the Slum Clearance Act must be obtained before instituting any pro ceeding under Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Act. This submission overlooks that in Jyoti Prasad's case (supra) which was decided 1961, the Court did not have before it the amendments introduced into the Delhi Rent Act by the amending Act of 1976, and therefore no question arose as to the effect of the non-obstante clauses containell in ss. 14A and 25A of the Delhi Rent Act. The decision is therefore not an authority for the proposition for which the appellants contend and the question arising before us cannot be held to be concluded by that decision. The argument of implied repeal has also no substance in it because our reason for according priority to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act is not that the Slum Clearance Act stands impliedly repealed pro tanto. Bearing in mind the language of the two laws, their object and purpose, and the fact that one of them is later in point of time and was"+ enacted with the knowledge of the non-obstante clauses in the earlier law, we haye come to the conclusion that the provisions of s. l4A and Chapter IIIA of the Rent Control Act must prevail over these .:;ontained in ss. 19 :md 39 of the Slnm CJeiJrance Act . ~ 'i · F G We understand that the view which we are taking has been congis ;tently taken by the learned Judges of the Delhi High Court in various •Case~. They arc right i_n their conclusion and accordingly, we UIJhold Jn the the Judgment of circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. the High Court and dismiss this appeal. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.