Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHAFAIT ALI THROUGH SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE versus SHIVA MAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

Decided
31 July 1987
Judges listed
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1987] 3 S.C.R. 689 · 1987 INSC 189

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated the 16th March, 1982 of

p. 690, margin B

the High Court of Delhi in Civil Revision No. 147 of 1982 directing eviction of the premises in question under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord. The special leave was sought for and obtained from this Court on the ground that Civil Appeal No. 1051/81 and special leave petition (civil) No. 2290/82 were pending at that time. It appears that the said appeal has been disposed of by this Court in Ravi Dutt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 614 where this Court held that Sections 14A, 14(e), 25A, 25B and 25C of the Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in view of the non·obstante clause in the section these

p. 690, margin B

provisions override the existing law so far as the new procedure is concerned. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in cases covered by Sections 14A and 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act especially in view of the provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.

p. 690, margin D

This Court held that there is no difference either on principle or in Jaw between section 14(l)(e) and !4A of the Rent Act even though these two provisions relate to eviction of tenants under different situations.

p. 690, margin F

This Court further held 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 !9(1)(a) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within Section 14(1)(e) or !4A of the Rent Act. In the pre-

p. 690, margin F

mises the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

p. 690, margin G

691

p. 691

The decree for eviction shall not be executed before 30.11.87 provided the appellant files an undertaking in the usual form within four weeks from today.

p. 691, margin A

A.P.J. Appeal dismissed. -~

p. 691, margin A