Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act: Satyawati Sharma is good law, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that its 2008 judgment of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Anr. relating to the interpretation of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act) is good law. Hence, the same need not be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and KM Joseph. .Section 14(1)(e).The two petitioners, Vinod Kumar and Ram Gopal, had challenged the interpretation of Section 14 (1)(e) of the Supreme Court in the Satyawati Sharma on the ground that it was contrary to two earlier decisions of the Court on this aspect..Section 14(1)(e) of the Act reads as follows:.“(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 suitable residential accommodation..Explanation.- For the purposes of the clause, “premises let for residential purposes” include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes.”.Satyawati Sharma Judgment.The Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma had held that Section 14(1)(e) is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter’s right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only..It, therefore, read down the provision as follows:.“that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord 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 suitable accommodation.”.Arguments.The petitioners have contended that the above judgment failed to abide by the Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar [(1985) 2 SCC 683] and a 3-judge Bench decision in Gauri Shanker v. Union of India, [(1994) 6 SCC 349]. It is the petitioner’s case that when the statute permits filing of an eviction petition only on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for residential premises, the re-writing of the section to include premises let out for any purpose including commercial premises could not have been done.In Gian Devi Anand, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held that Legislature has provided that bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use will be a legitimate ground under the Act for the eviction of his tenant from any residential premises. That ground, the Court had held, is however confined to residential premises and is not made available in case of commercial premises. The Court had, therefore, suggested that the Legislature may consider the advisability of making the bona fide requirement of the landlord a ground of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well..The petitioner had contended that the above decision in Gian Devi Anand was ignored by the Division Bench in Satywati Sharma.Besides, the petitioners have contended that the decision in Satyawati Sharma failed to consider the 3-judge Bench decision in Gauri Shanker v. Union of India and is per incuriam to that judgment..Judgment.The Court first examined the SC judgment in Gian Devi Anand..The submission of the petitioner was that Gian Devi Anand did not declare provisions of Section 14(1)(e) unconstitutional rather left it to the Legislature to amend the law. When Gian Devi Anand has itself not struck down Section 14(1)(e) Satyawati Sharma doing the same is contrary to the judgment of Gian Devi Anand..However, the Supreme Court, in fact, opined to the contrary. It held that the observation in paragraph 39 of Gian Devi Anand itself suggested that the Constitution Bench was satisfied that a ground for eviction of a tenant of commercial premises on bona fide requirement of the landlord should also be provided for..The basis for what was done in Satyawati Sharma was clearly laid down in Gian Devi Anand for striking down the unconstitutional part in Section 14(1)(e), the Court held. The ratio of Gian Devi Anand has neither been ignored nor any contrary view has been taken by Satyawati Sharma. Hence, it held that Satyawati Sharma is not per incuriam to Gian Devi Anand..Regarding the judgment in Gauri Shanker, the Court held that the same was not a case in which provision of Section 14(1)(e) came for consideration nor was any observation made with regard to ground of eviction available to the landlord with regard to commercial premises. Gauri Shanker had dealt with an entirely different provision, on certain limitation which was attached to residential premises itself to heritability. Thus, the Court distinguished the case of Gauri Shanker..The next limb of the attack of the appellant was on the basis of non-consideration of Section 25B of the Act, 1958. Section 25B provided for a special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement..The Court noted that Satyawati Sharma was considering the challenge to provisions of Section 14(1)(e) regarding the ground of bona fide need of landlord is also available for commercial premises..Section 25B being related only to the procedure for considering the application under Section 14(1) (e)has no bearing on the issue which had propped up before this Court in Satyawati Sharma, the Court ruled. Nothing in Section 25B can be read which runs counter to what has been laid down by Satyawati Sharma. Whether a procedure giving more flexibility to tenants of commercial premises should be provided for is another subject but non-reference of Section 25B by Satyawati Sharma does not render the judgment per incuriam, the Court held..The Court then proceeded to consider the next question: whether the judgment in Satyawati Sharma can be referred for reconsideration?.The Court after taking note of various judgments held that there is nothing in the judgment which needs to be revisited. It is for the Legislature to take stock of the situation and if it so decides it can make necessary changes in the procedure for considering the application under Section 14(1)(e) with regard to the eviction of commercial tenants on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord..“We need to add nothing more on the subject.”.The Court also noted that after the suggestions in Gian Devi Anand, the Legislature enacted the Delhi Rent Act, 1995. However, the same was never notified. Thus, what was laid down in Gian Devi Anand was accepted by the Legislature in providing for eviction from both the residential and non-residential premises on the ground of bona fide need in Act, 1995..Hence, what was held by the Court in Satyawati Sharma was something which the Legislature had also affirmed..Therefore, the Court turned down the plea to refer the case to a larger Bench..Advocate Uday Gupta led the submissions on behalf of the appellants. Senior Counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for the Landlord..[Read Judgment]