{"id":18310,"date":"1991-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991"},"modified":"2016-09-24T19:34:07","modified_gmt":"2016-09-24T14:04:07","slug":"s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991","title":{"rendered":"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (1) 364, \t 1991 SCC (2)\t 87<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. SURJIT SINGH KALRA ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/02\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nSAWANT, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 SCR  (1) 364\t  1991 SCC  (2)\t 87\n JT 1991 (1)   417\t  1991 SCALE  (1)179\n\n\nACT:\n     Delhi  Rent  Control Act, 1958- Sections  14B  to\t14D;\n14(1)(e),   14(6)  &  7\t and  25C(2)-Classified\t  Landlords-\nLandlord's  right to evict tenant-Tenant's right  to  resist\neviction-Scope\tof-Whether  landlord has to prove  his\tbona\nfide requirement.\n     Section  25B:  Introduction of Sections 14B to  14D  in\nsub-section  (1)  of Section  25B-Absence  of  corresponding\namendments to subsections (4) and (5) as also to the form of\nsummons\t specified  in the Third Schedule-Whether  allows  a\ntenant\tto  take  up defence under Section  14\t(1)  (e)  as\nagainst an application under Sections 14B to 14D.\n     Sections 25B(5) is self contained and Order 37 Rule  3,\nCPC has no role there-CPC, 1908, Order 37 Rule 3.\n     Interpretation  of\t statutes-Reading    words   in\t   a\nstatute-When permissible-Harmonious  construction--Purposive\napproach   to\tbe adopted by Courts.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was amended by Act  57\nof  1988  which introduced Sections 14B to 14D\tto  the\t Act\ncarving\t out thereby classified landlords from\tthe  general\nclass\tof  landlords  with  specified\trights\tto   recover\nimmediate  possession  of the premises let out\tby  them  if\nthese are required for their own residence. The released  or\nretired\t persons from armed forces or the dependents of\t the\nmember\tof  armed  forces killed in action  are\t covered  by\nSection 14B, the retired employees of the Central Government\nand of the Delhi Administration are covered by Section\t14C,\nand  the landlords who are widows are  covered\t by  Section\n14D.  These classified landlords are also given the  benefit\nof summary trial under Chapter IIIA by introducing  Sections\n14B to 14D in Sub-section (1) of Section 25B, but there\t are\nno  corresponding amendments to sub-sections (2) to  (5)  of\nSection 25B.\n     The   two\tpetitioners,  who  are\ttenants,   were\t  in\noccupation  of the premises belonging to two  Army  Officers\n(respondent-landlords). In the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       365\naction\tfor eviction brought by the landlords on the  ground\nthat  they  needed the premises for  their  occupation,\t the\ntenants\t sought leave to contest the application  which\t the\nRent Controller being not satisfied with the facts disclosed\nby  the\t tenants  in  their  affidavits\t denied.  The\tRent\nController  accepted the case of the landlords\tand  ordered\neviction  of  the tenants. The two  tenants  challenged\t the\neviction orders by filing separate revision petitions in the\nHigh Court. They also challenged the validity of Section 14B\nof  the Act before the High Court by means of  two  separate\nwrit  petitions under Article 226 of the  Constitution.\t The\nHigh  Court  dismissed the writ petition  and  the  revision\npetition  filed\t by one of the tenants who  being  aggrieved\nmoved this Court by way of special Leave Petition Nos.\t7146\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Court following its decision in the first case dismissed the
\nwrit  petition\tfiled by him, though the  revision  petition
\nfiled  by him was still pending. The tenant  challenged\t the
\ndecision  of  the  High Court by  preferring  Special  Leave
\nPetition No. 7364 of 1990 to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that\t the
\ntenant’s  right to contest the application for\teviction  on
\nthe  grounds specified in Section 14(l)(e) cannot be  denied
\neven  as  against  the classified  landlords  falling  under
\nSections  14B  to 14D. The tenant is entitled  to  leave  to
\ncontest\t the  application by disclosing such  facts  in\t the
\naffidavit as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an
\norder of eviction under Section 14(l)(e). This is because of
\nretention  of  sub-section (5) of Section  25B\twithout\t any
\namendment  and\tabsence\t of  amendment\tto  Section  25C(2).
\nIt  was\t also  contended that sub-sections (4)\tand  (5)  of
\nSection\t 25B  are a composite scheme and since\tthat  scheme
\nhas   been   left untouched the\t tenant’s  right  thereunder
\ncannot\tbe   denied.  It  was further  contended  that\tsub-
\nsection (6) of Section 14 is attracted to applications under
\nSections 14B to 14D.\n<\/p>\n
     Dismissing the Petitions, the Court,
\n     HELD: 1. Section 14B is a special provision made by the
\nlegislature  conferring certain rights to persons  belonging
\nto  Armed  Forces to recover from  their  tenants  immediate
\npossession of the premises for their occupation. [369E]
\n     2.1  The  Tenant  cannot  claim  right  to\t contest  an
\napplication for eviction on the grounds specified in Section
\n14(l)(e)  against  the classified  landlords  falling  under
\nSections  14B  to  14D. Acceptance of  such  a\tclaim  would
\npractically   obliterate   the\t purpose   and\t object\t  of
\nclassification\tof landlords under Sections 14B to  14D\t who
\nare carved out from
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       366<\/span>
\nthe  general  landlords; indeed it would  render  the  whole
\nexercise  of  creating\tspecial classes\t of  landlords\twith
\nspecified  rights to recover immediate of the  premises\t let
\nout by them nugatory. [371H-372C]
\n     2.2 The remedy under Section 14(l)(e) is available only
\nto  landlords  in  general  or the  landlords  who  are\t not
\nclassified   landlords\tunder  Sections\t 14B  to  14D.\t The
\nclassified landlords have been conferred with certain rights
\nwhich are different from and independent of the rights under
\nSection 14(l)(e). [372E-F]
\n     2.3  Sections  14B to 14D are markedly  different\tfrom
\nSection 14(1)(e).[375E-F]
\n     3.1 The argument that the absence of amendments to sub-
\nsections  (4) and (5) of Section 25B preserves the  tenant’s
\nright  to  contest  the application  of\t even  a  classified
\nlandlord on the grounds specified under Section 14(l)(e)  is
\nnot  sustainable.  Sub-section (4) of Section  25B  provides
\nthat the tenant has to obtain leave from the Controller\t “as
\nhereinafter  provided”,\t which\tin  the\t contest  means\t  as
\nprovided under sub-section-(5). This is the only sub-section
\nunder which the Controller could give leave to the tenant to
\ncontest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant
\ndiscloses  such facts as would disentitle the landlord\tfrom
\nobtaining  an  order for the recovery of possession  of\t the
\npremises. [376G, F]
\n     3.2  The  form specified in the Third  Schedule  refers
\nonly to application filed under Section 14(l)(e) or  Section
\n14A.  Therefore, when an application is filed under  Section
\n14B, a copy of the application should be sent to the  tenant
\nby  making  necessary amendment to the prescribed  form\t and
\nomitting the other references which are not relevant and the
\nsummons\t should\t state that the application is\tfiled  under
\nSection 14B and not under Section 14(l)(e) or 14A.  Likewise
\nif  the\t applications  are under Sections 14C  to  14D,\t the
\nsummons\t should state accordingly. That would  indicate\t the
\nscope of defence of the tenant for obtaining leave  referred
\nto in sub-section (5) of Section 25B. [377G-378A]
\n     3.3 Under sub-section (5), the tenant could contest the
\napplication  by\t obtaining  leave  with\t reference  to\t the
\nparticular   claim  in\tthe  application  of  the   landlord
\ndepending upon whether it is under Sections 14A, 14B, 14C or
\n14D or under Section 14(l)(e). [378B]
\n     The  tenant cannot be allowed to take up defence  under
\nSection\t 14(l)(e)  as against an application  under  Section
\n14B. There cannot be
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       367<\/span>
\nany  defence unconnected with or unrelated to the  claim  or
\nright  of the plaintiff or applicant. That would be  against
\nour  jurisprudence  and would be a mechanical interpretation
\nof  the enactment  defeating  its purpose. The\tcourts\thave
\nalways\tadopted a purposive approach to\t the  interpretation
\nof statutes. [378C-D]
\n     3.4  Section 14B and other allied provisions  ought  to
\nreceive\t a  purposeful construction and sub-section  (5)  of
\nSection\t 25B  should  be so construed as  to  implement\t the
\nobject and purpose of Sections 14B to 14D. It is the duty of
\nthe Court to give effect to the intention of the legislature
\nas expressed in Sections 148 to 14D. [378E]\n<\/p>\n
     4.\t The  tenant  is  entitled  to\traise  all  relevant
\ncontentions   as  against  the\tclaim  of   the\t  classified
\nlandlords.  The fact that there is no reference to the\tword
\nbona fide requirement in Sections 14B to 14D do not  absolve
\nthe landlord from proving that the requirement is bona\tfide
\nor the tenant from showing that it is not bona fide. In fact
\nevery  claim  for eviction against a tenant must be  a\tbona
\nfide one. There is also enough indication in support of this
\nconstruction  from  the title  of section 25B  which  states
\n“special  procedure  for the disposal  of  applications\t for
\neviction on the ground of bonafide requirement”. [378H-379B]\n<\/p>\n
     5. Section 14B and other allied provisions refer to the
\npremises  let  out  and not acquired by\t transfer.  One\t may
\nbecome an owner\t of  the premises by transfer but the tenant
\nin occupation of the transferred property cannot be  evicted
\nby resorting to Sections 14B to 14D. If the transferee wants
\nto  evict the tenant he must take action only under  Section
\n14(l)(e).  Equally  Sub-section\t (7) of Section\t 14  has  no
\napplication  to eviction under Sections 14B to 14D, nor\t the
\namended\t provisions under Section 25C(2). But that does\t not
\nmean that the tenants covered under Sections 14B to 14D\t are
\nnot entitled to any time for surrendering possession of\t the
\npremises.  It  is  always left to the Controller  who  is  a
\nquasi-judicial\tauthority to exercise his discretion  having
\nregard to the facts and circumstances of each case and grant
\na reasonable time to the tenant. [379E-G]\n<\/p>\n
     6. The Controller’s power to give leave to contest\t the
\napplication  filed under Section 14(l)(e) or Section 14A  is
\ncribbed\t by the condition that the ‘affidavit filed  by\t the
\ntenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord
\nfrom  obtaining an order for the recovery  of possession  of
\nthe  premises  on the ground specified’\t in  the  respective
\nsections.  Therefore,  if  an  application  is\tfiled  under
\nSection\t 14B or\t 14C or 14D, the tenant’s right\t to  contest
\nthe application is narrowed down
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       368<\/span>
\nand  is\t restricted  to the  parameters\t of  the  respective
\nSections.  He  cannot  widen the scope\tof  his\t defence  by
\nrelying upon Section 14(l)(e). Subsection (5) of Section 25B
\nis  self-contained  and Order 37 Rule 3 CPC has no  part  to
\nplay there. [38OB-C]
\n     Busching  Schmitz\tPrivate\t Ltd.  v.  P.T.\t Menghani  &
\nAnr.,<\/a>[1977] 2 SCC 835, affirmed and reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
     Precision\tSteel & Engineering Works and Anr. v.\tPrem
\nDeva Niranjan Deva Tayal,<\/a> [1982] 3 SCC 270, harmonised.\n<\/p>\n
     7.\t The  landlord in SLP No. 11425\/90 is  living  in  a
\nrented\thouse  and  is paying a rent of\t Rs.2,000  p.m.\t and
\nrequires  the  premises for himself and the members  of\t his
\nfamily. The landlord cannot be denied possession of his\t own
\npremises  under section 14B when he is residing in a  rented
\npremises. [38OD-E]\n<\/p>\n
     8. The contention that the concerned landlord has taken
\nvoluntary  retirement long earlier and has become a part  of
\nthe Society just like any other landlord and Section 14B was
\nnot  intended to confer such landlord the special  right  to
\nrecover\t  immediate  possession\t of  the  premises  is\t not
\nmaintainable because Section 14B(l) states that the  persons
\nwho  have already retired may within one year from the\tdate
\nof  their release or retirement from such Armed\t Forces\t or,
\nwithin a period of one year from the date of introduction of
\nSection 14B, whichever is later, apply to the controller for
\nrecovering the immediate possession of their premises.\tThat
\nis the legislative wisdom. [38OF-G]\n<\/p>\n
     9.\t True  it  is not permissible to  read\twords  in  a
\nstatute which are not there, but “where the alternative lies
\nbetween\t either supplying by implication words which  appear
\nto   have   been  accidentally\tomitted,   or\tadopting   a
\nconstruction  which deprives certain existing words  of\t all
\nmeanings,  it  is permissible to supply the  words”.  Having
\nregard to the context in which a provision appears and,\t the
\nobject\tof  the\t statute  in which  the\t said  provision  is
\nenacted, the court should construe it in a harmonious way to
\nmake  it meaningful. An attempt must always  be made  so  to
\nreconcile  the relevant provisions as to advance the  remedy
\nintended by the statute. [378E-G]
\nCraies\tStatute Law, 7th Edition, P. 109; Hameedia  Hardware
\nStores\tV. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar,<\/a> [1988] 2 SCC 513 at  524-25,
\nand  Sirajul Haq Khan & Ors. v. The Sunni Central  Board  of
\nWaqf,<\/a> [1959].1 SCR 1287 at 1299, relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t   369<\/span><\/p>\n
&
\n     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 837. 838
\nand 839 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
     From  the\tJudgment and Order dated  10.5-1990  of\t the
\nDelhi  High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1381, 2994  of
\n1989 and C.R. No. 954 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli  J.  Sorabjee, Attorney  General,   Kapil   Sibal,
\nAdditional Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi, Dr. Y.S. Chitale,
\nHarish\tN. Salve, H.K. Puri, Rajeev Sharma,  Ravinder  Nath,
\nV.B.   Saharya,\t P.K-  Jain,  Krishna  Moorthy\tIyer,\tPrem
\nMalhotra,  A.C. Sehgal, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, R.L.\t Jain,\tS.K.
\nTredal,\t Ms.  kitty Kumarmanglam, R.P.\tDave,\tMrs.  Sushma
\nSuri,  Ms.  M.\tBiswas and Ashok Mathur\t for  the  appearing
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
These  appeals\tfrom the decision of the  Delhi\t High  Court
\nraise the question with regard to landlord’s right to  evict
\nthe tenant under Section 14-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
\n1958  (‘The Act’) and the corresponding right of the  tenant
\nto  resist  the\t eviction proceedings.\tSection\t 14-B  is  a
\nspecial provision made by the Legislature conferring certain
\nrights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to recover\tfrom
\ntheir tenants immediate possession of the premises for their
\noccupation.\n<\/p>\n
     Mahendra Raj, the common petitioner in S.L.P. Nos. 7146
\nand  11425\/90,\tis a tenant occupying the  premises  of\t the
\nrespondent  Col. Ashok Puri. The petitioner in SLP No.\t7364
\nis  also a tenant, but occupying the premises belonging\t  to
\nthe   respondent   Brig.   V.N. Channa. In  the\t action\t for
\neviction brought by the respondents on the ground that\tthey
\nneed  the premises for their occupation, the tenants  sought
\nleave  to contest the application. But the  Rent  Controller
\nwas not satisfied with the facts disclosed by the tenants in
\ntheir affidavits and therefore, denied leave to contest\t the
\napplication  for eviction. He considered the  affidavits  of
\nthe  parties  and  accepted the case  of  the  landlord\t and
\ndirected  that the tenants shall be evicted. In the case  of
\nMahendra  Raj,\tthe Rent Controller made an  order  dated  2
\nSeptember,  1989 inter alia, observing that the landlord  is
\nliving in a rented house, that he is paying rent of Rs.2,000
\np.m., and that he requires the premises for himself and\t the
\nmembers of his family. The eviction order was challenged  by
\nthe  tenant by means of revision petition before  the  Delhi
\nHigh  Court. Almost simultaneously, the tenant also filed  a
\nwrit
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       370<\/span>
\npetition under Article 226 of the Constitution,\t challenging
\nthe validity of Section 14-B. On 10 May 1990, the High Court
\ndismissed the revision as well as the writ petition. Against
\nthe judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition,
\nthe  tenant has preferred SLP No. 7146 of 1990. Against\t the
\norder  dismissing  the\trevision petition,  the\t tenant\t has
\npreferred SLP No. 11425 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant in SLP No. 7364 of 1990 has also  challenged
\nthe order of eviction in a revision petition before the High
\nCourt  and we are told that the revision is  still  pending.
\nLike  the other tenant, he has also questioned the  validity
\nof Section 14-B before the High Court under Article 226. The
\nHigh Court dismissed that petition following the decision in
\nMahendra Raj’s case.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t would\tbe  convenient\tto  refer  to  the  relevant
\nprovisions of the Act ‘before dealing with the points raised
\nin  these  cases.  The Act applies  to\tpremises  which\t are
\ndefined by Section 2(i) as meaning, inter alia, any building
\nor  part of a building which is, or is intended to  be,\t let
\nseparately  for use as a residence or for commercial use  or
\nfor   any  or  other  purpose.\tSection\t 14  provides\tthat
\nnotwithstanding\t anything  to the contrary contained in\t any
\nother  law or contract, no decree or order for the  recovery
\nof  possession of any premises shall be passed by any  Court
\nor  Controller in favour of the landlord against  a  tenant.
\nThis  provision is, however,  subject  to   the\t  exceptions
\nprovided   under  several clauses of  the  proviso.  Section
\n14(l)(e)  allows a decree for ejectment to be passed if\t the
\nCourt  or Controller is satisfied that the premises let\t for
\nresidential purposes are required bona fide by the  landlord
\nfor occupation as a residence for himself or for any  member
\nof  his family dependent on him, provided that the  landlord
\nis  the owner of the premises and he has no other reasonably
\nsuitable   residential\t accommodation.\t  The\t explanation
\nthereunder  states  that   for\tthe purpose  of\t the  clause
\n14(1)(e) “premises let for residential purposes” include any
\npremises  which having been let for use as a residence\tare,
\nwithout\t the consent of the landlord, used incidentally\t for
\ncommercial  or other purposes. Section 14(l)(e)\t is  further
\nrestricted  by sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 14.\tSub-
\nsection\t (6) imposes a restriction on the landlord, who\t has
\nacquired  any premises by transfer, not to evict the  tenant
\nunder Section 14(l)(e) within the period of five years\tfrom
\nthe   date  of\tacquisition.  Sub-section  (7)\timposes\t  an
\nobligation on the Court where an order for eviction is\tmade
\non  the\t ground specified in Section 14(l)(e)  to  give\t the
\ntenant\tthe minimum period  of\tsix months for\tdelivery  of
\npossession to the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       371<\/span><\/p>\n
By  Act 18 of 1976 the Legislature has\tintroduced   certain
\nchanges\t in  the  Act with effect  from\t 1  December,  1975.
\nSection 14-A was introduced in Chapter Ill providing certain
\nrights\tto a person occupying residential premises  allotted
\nto  him\t by  the  Central  Government  or  any\tother  local
\nauthority.  If\the is required to  vacate  such\t residential
\naccommodation  on  the\tground that he\towns  in  the  Union
\nTerritory  of  Delhi, a house in his name or in the name  of
\nhis spouse or dependent children, he could recover immediate
\npossession  of his premises let out by\thim  notwithstanding
\nanything  contained elsewhere  in  the\tAct  or\t  any  other
\nlaw  for  the time being in force.  Simultaneously,  Chapter
\nIII-A  was  introduced\tcontaining  Section  25-A  to\t25-C
\nproviding summary trial of the applications filed  landlords
\nclassified under Section 14-A and also applications filed by
\nany  other  landlord  for bona\tfide  requirement  of  their
\npremises under Section 14(l)(e).\n<\/p>\n
     By\t the  Amending Act 57 of 1988 some more\t classes  of
\nlandlords  were\t carved\t out  from  the\t class\tof   general
\nlandlords. Section 14-B to Section 14-D are the\t provisions.
\nThe  released or retired persons from armed  forces  or\t the
\ndependents  of the  member  of\t armed forces who  had\tbeen
\nkilled\tin  action are covered by Section 14-B.\t They  could
\nrecover immediate possession of the premises let out by them
\nif  they are required for their own residence.\tThe  retired
\nemployees  of  the  Central  Government\t and  of  the  Delhi
\nAdministration\tare  covered  by Section  14-C.\t They  could
\nrecover immediate possession of the premises let out by them
\nif  they are needed for their own residence.  The  landlords
\nwho  are  widows are covered by Section\t 14-D  with  similar
\nright  to recover immediate possession of the  premises\t let
\nout by them or by their husband. These classified  landlords
\nare  also  given  the benefit of  the  summary\ttrial  under
\nChapter III-A, by introducing Sections 14-B to 14-D in\tsub-
\nsection (1) of Section 25-B. The sub-section (1) of  Section
\n25-B  as  it  stands provides that every  application  by  a
\nlandlord for recovery of possession of any premises on\t the
\nground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section
\n(1)  of Section 14, or under Section 14-A or  under  Section
\n14-B  or under Section 14-C or under Section 14-D  shall  be
\ndealt  with  in accordance with the procedure  specified  in
\nthis Section. There are however, no corresponding amendments
\nto sub-sections 2 to 5 of Section 25-B.\n<\/p>\n
     Omission\t to    make    corresponding\t  amendments
\nparticularly,\t to sub-sections 4 & 5 of Section 25  B\t has
\ngiven  rise  to the arguments for the petitioners  that\t the
\ntenant’s  right to contest the application for\teviction  on
\nthe  grounds specified in Section 14(1)(e) cannot be  denied
\neven  as  against  the classified  landlords  falling  under
\nSections 14-B to 14-D. It
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       372<\/span>
\nwas also argued that the classified landlords may prove\t the
\nfacts stated in their respective provisions, but the  tenant
\nis  entitled to contest the application by  disclosing\tsuch
\nfacts  as would disentitle the landlords from  obtaining  an
\norder  of  eviction on the grounds specified  under  Section
\n14(l)(e).\n<\/p>\n
     The acceptance of the submissions urged for petitioners
\nwould  practically  obliterate\tthe purpose  and  object  of
\nclassification of landlords under Sections 14-B to 14-D\t who
\nare carved out from the general landlords. Indeed, it  would
\nrender\tthe  whole exercise of creating special\t classes  of
\nlandlords  with\t specified  rights  to\t recover   immediate
\npossession of the premises let out by them nugatory.\n<\/p>\n
     Before  the  introduction\tof  Sections  14-B  to\t 14-
\nD,   Section 14(l)(e) was the only remedy available  to\t all
\nlandlords  except   those  covered  under  Section  14-A  to
\nrecover\t possession   of  their\t  premises.  The  Controller
\nshall give the tenant leave to contest the applications,  if
\nthe  tenant in his affidavit discloses such facts  as  would
\ndisentitle  the\t landlords  from  obtaining  an\t order\t for
\nrecovery  of  possession  of  the premises  on\tthe  grounds
\nspecified  under Section 14(l)(e). It  is  but natural\twhen
\nthe landlord brings an action for recovery of possession  of
\nthe  premises  covered under Section 14(l)(e),\tthe   tenant
\nhas  the legitimate right to show that the landlord does not
\nqualify\t under\tor  satisfy  the  requirements\tof   Section
\n14(l)(e).  But\ttoday  the  remedy under Section 14(l)(e) is
\navailable only to landlords in general or the landlords\t who
\nare not classified  landlords  under  Sections\t14-B  to 14-
\nD. The classified landlords have been conferred with certain
\nrights\twhich  are  different from and\tindependent  of\t the
\nrights under  Section 14( 1)(e). For a proper understanding,
\nwe  may set out Section 14(l)(e), side by side with  Section
\n14-B.\n<\/p>\n
Section 14 (1) (e)\t\tSection 14-B\n<\/p>\n
14.  Protection\t of   tenant\t14.   B\t Right\tto   recover
\nagainst eviction.\t\timmediate    possession\t   of
\n\t\t\t\tpremises to accrue to members
\n\t\t\t\tof the armed forces etc.
\n(1) Notwithstanding anything   (1)  Where the  landlord:-
\nto the contrary contained in
\nany  other law or  contract,   (a) is a released or  retired
\nno  order   or decree  for     person\tfrom\t  any\tarmed
\nthe  recovery  of possession   forces  and the premises\t let
\nof  any premises shall be      out  by him are required\t for
\nmade by any Court on\t       his  own\t residence;  or
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       373<\/span>
\nController in favour of\t the   (b)  is\ta  dependent  of  a
\nlandlord against a tenant:     member  of any armed  forces
\n\t\t\t       who   had  been\tkilled\t in
\n\t\t\t       action and the premises\tlet
\nProvided that the Controller   out   by\t such  member\tare
\nmay, on an application\tmade   required\t for the  residence
\nto  him\t in  the  prescribed   of   the\t family\t  of   such
\nmanner make an order for the   member,
\nrecovery  of  possession  of
\nthe premises on one or\tmore
\nof  the\t following   grounds   Such person or, as the  case
\nonly, namely-\t\t       may  be, the dependent  may,
\n\t\t\t       within  one  year  from\tthe
\n     xxx   xxx\t xxx\t       date   of  his  release\t or
\n\t\t\t       retirement  from such  armed\n<\/p>\n
(e)  that the  premises\t let   forces  or, as the case\tmay
\nfor residential purposes are   be,  the\t date of  death\t of
\nrequired  bona fide  by\t the   such  member,  or  within  a
\nlandlord for occupation as a   period of one year from\tthe
\nresidence for himself or for   date of commencement of\tthe
\nany  member  of\t his  family   Delhi\t  Rent\t    Control
\ndependent  on him, if he  is   (Amendment)    Act,    1988,
\nthe  owner thereof,  or\t for   whichever is later, apply to
\nany person for whose benefit   the\tController\tfor
\nthe  premises are  held\t and   recovering   the\t  immediate
\nthat  the landlord  or\tsuch   possession of such premises.
\nperson\t  has\t no    other   (2)  Where the landlord is a
\nreasonably suitable residen-   member  of any of the  armed
\ntial accommodation :\t       forces  and has a period\t of
\n\t\t\t       less than one year preceding
\n\t\t\t       the  date of his\t retirement
\n\t\t\t       and the premises let out\t by
\n\t\t\t       him are required for his own
\n\t\t\t       residence     after\this
\n\t\t\t       retirement,  he may, at\tany
\nExplanation:\t For\t the   time, within a period of one
\npurposes  of  this   clause,   year before the date of\this
\n‘premises      let\t for   retirement,  apply  to\tthe
\nresidential\t   purposes’   Controller  for\t recovering
\ninclude\t any premises  which   the immediate possession\t of
\nhaving been let for use as a   such premises.
\nresidence  are, without\t the
\nconsent\t of  the   landlord,   (2) Where the landlord is  a
\nused\tincidentally\t for   member of any of the   armed
\ncommercial     or      other   forces  and  has a period of
\npurposes.”\t\t       less than one year preceding
\n\t\t\t       the date\t of  his retirement
\n\t\t\t       and the premises let out\t by
\n\t\t\t       him are required for his own
\n\t\t\t       residence     after\this
\n\t\t\t       retirement, he may,  at\tany
\n\t\t\t       time, within a period of one
\n\t\t\t       year before the date  of his
\n\t\t\t       retirement,   apply  to\tthe
\n\t\t\t       Controller   for\t recovering
\n\t\t\t       the immediate possession\t of
\n\t\t\t       such premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       (3)  Where   the\t   landlord
\n\t\t\t       referred\t to  in sub-section
\n\t\t\t       (1) or  sub-section  (2) has
\n\t\t\t       let  out\t  more\t than\tone
\n\t\t\t       premises, it shall be open to
\n\t\t\t       him to make  an\tapplication
\n\t\t\t       under  that  sub-section\t in
\n\t\t\t       respect of only one  of\tthe
\n\t\t\t       premises chosen by him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Explanation: For the purposes
\n\t\t\t       of this Section `armed forces’
\n\t\t\t       means an armed force  of\t the
\n\t\t\t       Union  constituted  under  an
\n\t\t\t       Act    of   Parliament\t and
\n\t\t\t       includes\t a  member  of\t the
\n\t\t\t       police\tforce\t constituted
\n\t\t\t       under Section 3 of the  Delhi
\n\t\t\t       Police\tAct,  1978  (34\t  of
\n\t\t\t       1978).”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t374<\/span><\/p>\n
     To\t make  the picture complete we may  also  read\tsub-
\nsections 6 & 7 of Section 14.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “14(6) Where a landlord has acquired any  premises
\n\t  transfer,  no\t application  for  the\trecovery  of
\n\t  possession  of such premises shall lie under\tsub-
\n\t  section (1) on the ground specified in clause\t (e)
\n\t  of  the proviso thereto, unless a period  of\tfive
\n\t  years\t  has\telapsed\t from  the   date   of\t the
\n\t  acquisition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  14(7) Where an order for recovery of possession of
\n\t  any  premises is made on the ground  specified  in
\n\t  clause  (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1)\t the
\n\t  landlord   shall   not  be  entitled\t to   obtain
\n\t  possession  thereof  before the  expiration  of  a
\n\t  period of six months from the date of the order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Under  Section  14(l)(e),\tthe  premises  let  out\t for
\nresidence  could  be  recovered\t from  the  tenant,  if\t the
\nlandlord  requires  the\t premises  bona\t fide  for  his\t own
\noccupation or for any member of his family dependent on him.
\nThe  eviction could also be sought for any person for  whose
\nbenefit\t the  premises are held. The condition\tbeing  apart
\nfrom  the requirement must be bona fide, there shall  be  no
\nother reasonably suitable residential accommodation for\t the
\nlandlord  or  for whose benefit the premises are  held.\t The
\nexplanation  to Section 14(1)(e) provides “premises let\t for
\nresidential purposes” include any premises which having been
\nlet  for use as a residence are without the consent  of\t the
\nlandlord,   used  incidentally\tfor  commercial\t  or   other
\npurposes. That means if with the consent of the landlord the
\npremises   let\tfor  residential  purposes  are\t  used\t for
\ncommercial  or\tother  purposes,  the  landlord\t will\thave
\ndifficult  task\t to evict such tenant.\tSub-section  (6)  of
\nSection\t 14  provides protection to the\t tenant\t from  being
\nevicted\t from  the premises which are transferred  to  third
\nparties.The  transferee\t landlord must wait for\t five  years
\nfrom the date of the transfer or acquisition before he moves
\nthe  Court for eviction of the tenant already in  occupation
\nof  the premises. Sub-section (7) is again a  protection  to
\nthe  tenant requiring the Court or the Controller to give  a
\nminimum\t period\t of six months to vacate from  the  date  of
\norder  of  eviction. This is a complete code  governing\t the
\ndisposal of application filed under Section 14(1)(e).\n<\/p>\n
     Under  Section  14-B the right to evict the  tenant  is
\navailable  to two categories of persons, (i) The person\t who
\nhas let out the premises and, (ii) the dependent of a member
\nof any armed forces who had let
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       375<\/span>
\nout  the premises but killed in action. In the former  case,
\nthe  premises must be required for his own residence and  in
\nthe latter, for the residence of the family of such  member.
\nIt  may\t be noted that\tSection 14(l)(e) requires  that\t the
\npremises  should have been let for residential purposes\t but
\nthe  landlord who seeks eviction need not be the person\t who
\nhas let out. But Section 14-B narrows down such right. It is
\nhe who has let out alone could evict or the dependent of the
\nperson who has let out but since killed in action. Secondly,
\nSection\t 14-B uses the expression “the premises let  out  by
\nhim”  unlike  the expression used in Section  14(l)(e)\t“the
\npremises  let out for residential purposes”. The  definition
\nof  “premises” under sub-section (2)(i) means “any  building
\nor  part  of  a building which is or  intended\tto  be\tlet,
\nseparately  for use as a residence or for commercial use  or
\nfor any other purpose . . .”. It is clear that Section\t14-B
\ndoes not require that the premises should have been let\t out
\nfor  residential  purposes and the purpose  of\tletting\t out
\nseems  to be irrelevant. But he who has let out alone  could
\nseek eviction of his tenant or the dependent of , member  of
\nany armed forces who had let out but since killed in action.
\nSection\t 14-B  also provides the period\t of  limitation\t for
\nclaiming possession of such premises, but no such limitation
\nis  provided  under  Section 14(l)(e).\tSub-section  (3)  of
\nSection 14-B imposes further restriction on the landlord who
\nis having more than one premises. Such a landlord cannot ask
\nfor  possession of more than one of the premises but he\t can
\nchoose any one\tof  the premises which he has let out.\tHere
\nagain  we  find\t that  there is no  such  restriction  to  a
\nlandlord   covered  under  Section  14(l)(e)  provided\t the
\nrequirement of the landlord is bona fide and he has no other
\nreasonably  suitable  residential  accommodation.    Section
\n14(l)(e)   does\t  not  preclude the  landlord  from  seeking
\neviction  of more than one premises provided he\t establishes
\nthe need.\n<\/p>\n
     Similar are the provisions in allied Sections 14-C\t and
\n14-D.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t will  be thus seen that Sections 14-B to  14-D\t are
\nmarkedly different from Section 14(1)(e).\n<\/p>\n
     Notwithstanding  these two independent provisions\twith
\nspecified rights to landlords in general and the  classified
\nlandlords,  Counsel  for  the tenants  argued  that  Section
\n14(l)(e)  is  the  weapon of defence  for  the\ttenant\teven
\nagainst the applications under Sections 14-B or 14-C or\t 14-
\nD.   The  tenant  is  entitled\tto  leave  to  contest\t the
\napplication by disclosing such facts in his affidavit  which
\nwould  disentitle  the landlord from obtaining an  order  of
\neviction  under Section 14(l)(e). This contention is  sought
\nto be supported first, by the retention of sub-section
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       376<\/span>
\n(5)  of Section 25-B without any amendment, second,  absence
\nof   amendment\tto   SeCtion   25(C)(2).   It\t was\talso
\ncontended   that  sub-sections 4 & 5 of Section 25-B  are  a
\ncomposite  scheme  and\tsince  that  scheme  has  been\tleft
\nuntouched   the\t  tenant’s   right   thereunder\t  cannot  be
\ndenied.\n<\/p>\n
     The  submission if taken to logical  conclusion   leads
\nto   obvious anomaly which will be indicated presently.\t But
\nbefore\twe  do that it will be necessary to  deal  with\t one
\nother  contention. Sub-section (1) of Section 25-B  provides
\nthat every application for the recovery of possession of any
\npremises belonging to persons referred to in sub-section (1)
\nof Section 25-B shall be dealt with in accordance with\t the
\nprocedure  prescribed  “in  this  Section”  meaning  thereby
\nentire\t Section  25-B.\t It was also the submission  of\t Dr.
\nChitale\t counsel for one of the tenants in these cases.\t Mr.
\nKrishna\t Moorthy  Iyer\tcounsel for  the  Union\t of   India,
\nhowever,  argued  that\tthe  procedure\tcontemplated   under
\nsub-section (5) of Section 25-B need not be followed by\t the
\nController  with  regard  to   applications   filed    under
\nSections   14-B\t to  14-D.  According  to counsel  when\t the
\ntenant\tis  duly  served of  the  application  filed   under
\nSections  14-B, 14-C or 14-D he has no right to contest\t the
\napplication unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds
\non  which he seeks to contest the application  for  eviction
\nand  obtains leave  from  the  Controller. It is  said\tthat
\nsub-section  (4) itself authorises the Controller to  refuse
\nleave  if  he is satisfied that the grounds set out  in\t the
\naffidavit of the tenant would not disentitle the landlord to
\nseek eviction.\tWe  do not think that this contention  could
\nbe  accepted.  Indeed,\tsub-section (4) itself provides that
\nthe  tenant  has to obtain leave from  the  Controller,\t “as
\nhereinafter  provided”,\t which\tin  the\t context  means\t  as
\nprovided  under\t sub-section (5) the meaning  and  scope  of
\nwhich  will be presently considered. This is the only\tsub-
\nsection\t  under\t which\tthe  Controller could give leave  to
\nthe tenant to contest the application if the affidavit filed
\nby  the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle\t the
\nlandlord  from\tobtaining  an  order  for  the\trecovery  of
\npossession of the premises.\n<\/p>\n
     The  argument  that the absence of amendments  to\tsub-
\nsections  4  and 5 of Section 25-B  preserves  the  tenant’s
\nright  to  contest  the application  of\t even  a  classified
\nlandlord  on  the grounds specified under  section  14(l)(e)
\nwould be basically faulty. If such argument is available  in
\nrespect of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 25-B, it must
\nbe  equally  available to sub-section (2) of  Section  25-B.
\nThere  is also no corresponding amendment to the summons  to
\nbe issued under subsection (2) and the form specified in the
\nThird Schedule after the introduction of Section 14-B to 14-
\nD. Third Schedule is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       377<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t    “The Third Schedule
\n\t  Form\tof  Summons  in a  case\t where\trecovery  of
\n\t  possession  of  Premises  is\tPrayed\tfor  on\t the
\n\t  ground of bona fide requirement or under  Section
\n\t  14-A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  To
\n\t  (Name,  description and place of residence of\t the
\n\t  tenant)
\n\t  Whereas Shri\t_________________________________has
\n\t  filed an application (a copy of which is  annexed)
\n\t  for\t your\teviction  from\t(here\tinsert\t the
\n\t  particulars\tof  the\t premises)  on\tthe   ground
\n\t  specified  in\t clause (e) of the proviso  to\tsub-
\n\t  section (1) of Section 14, or under Section  14-A;
\n\t  You are hereby  summoned  to\tappear\tbefore\t the
\n\t  Controller  within  fifteen days  of\tthe  service
\n\t  hereof  and  to obtain the leave of the Controller
\n\t  to  contest  the application for eviction  on\t the
\n\t  ground   aforesaid;  in   default   whereof,\t the
\n\t  applicant  will be entitled at any time after\t the
\n\t  expiry  of  the  said period of  fifteen  days  to
\n\t  obtain  an order for your eviction from  the\tsaid
\n\t  premises.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Leave\t to  appear and\t contest   the\t application
\n\t  may\t be  obtained  or  an  application  to\t the
\n\t  Controller   supported   by  an  affidavit  as  if
\n\t  referred  to in sub-section (5) of  Section  25-B.
\n\t  Given under my hand and seal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  This_________________ day of_____________________
\n\t  19_______
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tController”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This  form specified in the Third Schedule refers\tonly
\nto  applications  filed\t under\tSection\t 14(l)(e)  or  under
\nSection.14A. Does it mean that the unamended form should  be
\nused  to  issue\t notice to the tenant  even  in\t case  where
\napplication for eviction is not made under Section  14(l)(e)
\nor  14-A?  Is  the tenant entitled to  claim  that  he\tmust
\nreceive\t the notice in the unamended form only, since  there
\nis no corresponding amendment to the form after introduction
\nof  Sections 14-B to 14-D? A wooden reading may furnish\t him
\npositive  answers,  but\t it would  be  ridiculous.  When  an
\napplication  is\t filed\tunder Section 14-B, a  copy  of\t the
\napplication should be sent to the tenant by making necessary
\namendment to the prescribed form and omitting the other
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       378<\/span>
\nreferences  which  are not relevant. If the  application  is
\nfiled under Section 14-B, the summons should state that\t the
\napplication  is\t filed\tunder Section  14-B  and  not  under
\nSection\t 14(l)(e) or 14-A. Likewise if the applications\t are
\nunder  Sections\t 14-C  to 14-D,\t the  summons  should  state
\naccordingly. That would indicate the scope of the defence of
\nthe  tenant for obtaining leave referred to  in\t sub-section
\n(5) of Section 25-B. Under sub-section (5), the tenant could
\ncontest the application by obtaining leave with reference to
\nthe  particular\t claim in the application  of  the  landlord
\ndepending upon whether it is under Section 14-A, 14-B,\t14-C
\nor  14-D  or under Section 14(l)(e). The tenant can  not  be
\nallowed to take up defence under Section 14(l)(e) as against
\nan  application\t under\tSection 14-B. There  cannot  be\t any
\ndefence unconnected with or unrelated to the claim or  right
\nof  the\t plaintiff or applicant. That would be\tagainst\t our
\njurisprudence. It is unlikely that the Legislature  intended
\nthe  result for which the counsel for the tenant  contended.
\nIt  will  be a mechanical interpretation  of  the  enactment
\ndefeating  its\tpurpose. Such an  interpretation  has  never
\nfound  favour  with the Courts which have always  adopted  a
\npurposive  approach  to\t the  interpretation  of   statutes.
\nSection 14-B and other allied provisions ought to receive  a
\npurposeful  construction and subsection (5) of Section\t25-B
\nshould\tbe  so\tconstrued as to\t implement  the\t object\t and
\npurpose of Section 14-B to 14-D. It is the duty of the Court
\nto  give  effect  to the intention  of\tthe  Legislature  as
\nexpressed in Section 14-B to 14-D.\n<\/p>\n
     True  it is not permissible to read words in a  statute
\nwhich are not there, but “where the alternative lies between
\neither\tsupplying by implication words which appear to\thave
\nbeen accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction  which
\ndeprives  certain  existing  words of all  meanings,  it  is
\npermissible  to supply the words” (Craies Statute  Law,\t 7th
\nEdition,  p. 109). Similar are the observations in  Hameedia
\nHardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar,<\/a> [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at
\n524-25\twhere  it was observed that the court  construing  a
\nprovision  should not easily read into it words\t which\thave
\nnot been expressly enacted but having regard to the  context
\nin  which a provision appears and the object of the  statute
\nin  which  the said provision is enacted  the  court  should
\nconstrue  it in a harmonious way to make it  meaningful.  An
\nattempt\t must  always be made so to reconcile  the  relevant
\nprovisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute.
\n(See: Sirajul Haq Khan & Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board  of
\nWaqf,<\/a> [ 1959] SCR 1287 at 1299).\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant of course is entitled to raise all  relevant
\ncontentions   as  against  the\tclaim  of   the\t  classified
\nlandlords. The fact that there is no
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       379<\/span>
\nreference to the word bona fide requirement in sections\t 14-
\nB  to  14-D does not absolve the landlord from proving\tthat
\nhis requirement is bona fide or the tenant from showing that
\nit  is not bona fide. In fact every claim for eviction of  a
\ntenant\tmust  be  a  bona fide one.  There  is\talso  enough
\nindication in support of this construction from the title of
\nSection\t 25(B)\twhich  states  “special\t procedure  for\t the
\ndisposal of applications for eviction on the ground of\tbona
\nfide requirement.\n<\/p>\n
     It was next urged that sub-section (6) of Section 14 is
\nalso  attracted to applications under Section 14-B to  14-D.
\nThis  contention   overlooks the express  wordings  of\tsub-
\nsection (6). It refers to premises acquired by transfer\t and
\nthereby\t the  transferee  becoming  the\t landlord.  Such   a
\nlandlord  cannot bring an action for eviction of  tenant  in
\npossession of the acquired premises within a period of\tfive
\nyears from the date of acquisition. After five years such  a
\nlandlord  can ask for eviction of the tenant  under  section
\n14(i)(e).  This is indeed, as we said earlier, a  protection
\nto  the tenant. The original landlord who cannot  evict\t the
\ntenant\tsince  he has got many houses under  his  occupation
\ncannot use the device by transferring one of the houses to a
\nthird party who could easily evict such a tenant. The tenant
\nin occupation of the transferred premises gets a  protection
\nfrom  eviction for a minimum period of five  years.  Section
\n14-B  and other allied provisions refer to the premises\t let
\nout  and not acquired  by transfer. One may become an  owner
\nof the premises by transfer but the tenant in occupation  of
\nthe  transferred property cannot be evicted by resorting  to
\nsections 14-B to 14-D. If the transferee wants to evict\t the
\ntenant\tof  such  premises he must take\t action\t only  under
\nSection 14(l)(e). Equally, sub-section (7) of Section 14 has
\nno application to eviction under Sections 14-B to 14-D.\t Nor
\nthe   amended  provisions under Section 25(c)(2)  would\t  be
\nattracted  since  it applies exclusively to tenants  of\t the
\nlandlords covered under Section 14-A. But that does not mean
\nthat the tenants covered under Sections 14-B to 14-D are not
\nentitled  to  any time for surrendering\t possession  of\t the
\npremises.  it  is  always left to the Controller  who  is  a
\nquasi-judicial\tauthority to exercise his discretion  having
\nregard\tto  the facts and circumstances of  each  case.\t The
\nController  must exercise his judicial discretion  in  every
\ncase of eviction and grant a reasonable time to the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     There is one other\t aspect which requires\telucidation.
\nIn  Busching Schmitz Private Limited v. P. T.  Meighani\t and
\nAnr.,<\/a>  [1977]  2 SCC 835 this Court while dealing  with\t the
\nscope  of  Section 14-A and the corresponding right  of\t the
\ntenant to resist the application thereunder, has inter-alia,
\nobserved  that\tsub-section (5) of Section  25-B  cannot  be
\nequated\t with  Order  37  Rule\t3  of  the  Code  of   Civil
\nProcedure.  The
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       380<\/span>
\nsocial\tsetting demanding summary proceeding, the nature  of
\nthe  subject-matter and, above all, the legislative  diction
\nwhich  has  been deliberately designed, differ\tin  the\t two
\nprovisions. The Controller’s power to give leave to  contest
\nthe application filed under Section 14(l)(e) or Section 14-A
\nis cribbed by the condition that the affidavit filed by\t the
\ntenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord
\nfrom  obtaining an order for the recovery of  possession  of
\nthe  premises  on  the ground specified\t in  the  respective
\nsections. Needless to state, therefore if an application  is
\nfiled under Section 14-B or 14-C or 14-D, the tenant’s right
\nto   contest  the  application\tis  narrowed  down  and\t  is
\nrestricted to the parameters of the respective sections.  He
\ncannot\twiden  the  scope of his  defence  by  relying\tupon
\nSection\t 14(l)(e). We find nothing contrary to our  view  in
\nPrecision  Steel & Engineering Works and Anr. v.  Prem\tDeva
\nNiranjan  Deva Tayal,<\/a> [ 1982] 3 SCC 270. Subsection  (5)  of
\nSection 25 is self contained and Order 37 Rule 3 CPC has  no
\npart  to  play\tthere. We, therefore,  reiterate  the  views
\nexpressed in Basching Schmitz Private Limited case.\n<\/p>\n
     The  tenant, who is petitioner in SLP No. 11425\/90\t has
\nsuffered  an order of eviction which has been  confirmed  by
\nthe High Court in revision. It is found that his landlord is
\nliving\tin a rented house and is paying a rent\tof  Rs.2,000
\np.m.  and  he  requires the premises  for  himself  and\t the
\nmembers of his family. We concur with the view taken by\t the
\nController  as\taffirmed  by the High  Court.  The  landlord
\ncannot\tbe  denied  possession of  his\town  premises  under
\nSection 14-B when he is residing in a rented premises.\n<\/p>\n
     Before parting with the case, we have to deal with\t one
\nother  contention which has been specifically raised by\t Mr.
\nSanghi.\t The counsel argued that the concerned landlord\t has
\ntaken voluntary retirement long earlier and he has become  a
\npart of the society just like any other landlord and Section
\n14-B  was not intended to confer such landlord, the  special
\nright  to  recover  immediate possession  of  the  premises.
\nObvious\t answer to this contention is found in\tSection\t 14-
\nB(1) which states that the persons who have already  retired
\nmay  within  one  year from the date  of  their\t release  or
\nretirement from such Armed Forces or, within a period of one
\nyear  from  the\t date  of  introduction\t of  Section   14-B,
\nwhichever  is later apply to the Controller  for  recovering
\nthe  immediate\tpossession of their premises.  That  is\t the
\nlegislative wisdom.\n<\/p>\n
     In this view of the matter, the appeals stand  disposed
\nwithout an order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
D.R.L.\t\t\t\t       Appeals disposed\t of.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       381<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 SCR (1) 364, 1991 SCC (2) 87 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: S. SURJIT SINGH KALRA ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/02\/1991 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-24T14:04:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T14:04:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\"},\"wordCount\":6681,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\",\"name\":\"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T14:04:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-24T14:04:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991","datePublished":"1991-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T14:04:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991"},"wordCount":6681,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991","name":"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T14:04:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-surjit-singh-kalra-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-etc-on-13-february-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Etc on 13 February, 1991"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18310"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18310\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}