Landlord can’t be precluded from filing eviction petition on the ground of bonafide need regarding non-residential premises.

The Supreme Court has held that the judgment Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India which held that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is unconstitutional to the extent it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes, cannot be held to be per incuriam.

The above-mentioned reasoning was observed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kr. Gandhi (CA 3793 of 2013), delivered on 05.08.2019.

Challenge:

The appellants-tenants occupying non-residential buildings for whose eviction petitions have been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide. The appellants at the very outset challenge the maintainability of eviction petitions filed by the landlord under 14(1)(e) on the ground of bonafide need.

The Rent Controller after receipt of the said application issued notice to the appellant-tenant. The appellant filed an application seeking leave to defend along with a detailed affidavit in support thereof. The landlord filed a reply to the application along with counter-affidavit.

The Additional Rent Controller rejected the application seeking leave to defend filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller revision petition was filed by the appellant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order of Additional Rent Controller. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant filed the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The counsel for the appellant questioned the correctness of judgment of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India and Another, (2008) 5 SCC 287(hereinafter referred as “the Sharma case”). It was the submission of the appellant that the Eviction Petitions have been filed under 14(1)(e) for eviction from non-residential premises on the projected bonafide need of landlord only on the basis of judgment of the Sharma case, which had, in fact, re-written the provision of 14(1)(e).

Held:

The divisional bench of the Apex Court answered the question whether the judgment delivered in the Sharma case said to be per incuriam or not. The division bench observed that in the Sharma case, it was held that Section 14(1) (e) of Act is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution in so far as it  discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes, when the same are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the landlord’s right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only. It also clarified that it is not totally striking down of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in its entirety but it has struck down only the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e).

The Apex Court examined the Sharma case with constitutional bench judgment Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 683 (hereinafter referred as “the Devi case”). The division bench noted that the Constitution Bench in the Devi case did not declare provisions of Section 14(1)(e) unconstitutional rather left it to the Legislature to amend the law. The Court noted that in Devi case the Constitution Bench was satisfied that a ground for eviction of tenant of commercial premises on bona fide requirement of landlord should also be provided in the section. The basis for what has been done in the Sharma case as clearly laid down in the Devi case for striking down the unconstitutional part in Section 14(1)(e).

The division bench further observed that the Constitution Bench observed the landlord who let out commercial premises, under changed circumstances, may need bona fide premises for his own use. The Constitution Bench suggested that 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 Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (not enforced) itself noted the need for providing a ground for eviction to landlord on bona fide need with regard to residential as well as non-residential premises. Thus, what was said in the Devi case in paragraph was duly accepted by Legislature.