SATYAWATI SHARMA V. UNION OF INDIA, 2008 (6) SCALE 325
FACTS:
Delhi Improvement Trust leased out a plot of land to Shri Jagat Singh son of Pt. Ram Kishan. In terms of Clause 4(c) of the lease deed, the lessee was prohibited from using the land and building for any purpose other than residence, with a stipulation that in case of breach of this condition, the lease shall become void. After constructing the building, the lessee inducted Shri Jai Narain Sharma and Dr. Ms. Tara Motihar, as tenants in two portions of the building, who started using the rented premises for running watch shop and clinic respectively.
Smt. Satyawati Sharma (appellant herein), purchased property from legal heirs of the lessee. After purchasing the property, the appellant filed petition for eviction of the tenants by claiming that she needed the house for her own bona fide need and also for the use and occupation of the family members’ dependent upon her. The appellant further pleaded that she wanted to demolish the building and reconstruct the same. She also alleged that tenants have been using the premises in violation of the conditions of lease and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Additional Rent Controller: held that appellant failed to prove, that the portions of the house were let out for residential purposes, that she does not have any alternative accommodation and that the need of the appellant was bona fide. Order for recovery of possession was not passed on the ground that u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act, such an order can be passed only in respect of premises let for residential purposes.
Rent Control Tribunal: agreed with Additional Rent Controller.
High Court: The appellant challenged the orders of the Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal. She filed another petition, with the prayer that Section 14(1)(e) of the Act be declared ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it does not provide for eviction of the tenant from the premises let for non-residential purposes. Both the writ petitions were heard by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court along with other writ petitions involving challenge to the vires of Section 14(1) (e) and were dismissed by the order under challenge.
ISSUE: Is section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ultra vires the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
JUDGEMENT:
The court referred to the case of Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, wherein it was held that,
“The 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. This ground is not made available in case of commercial premises. A landlord who lets out commercial premises to a tenant under certain circumstances may need bona fide the premises for his own use under changed conditions on some future date should not in fairness be deprived of his right to recover the commercial premises. Bona fide need of the landlord will stand very much on the same footing in regard to either class of premises, residential or commercial. We, therefore, suggest 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.”
Court then referred to the case of H.C. Sharma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein it was held that,
“The object in not providing for the eviction of a tenant from a non- residential premises on the ground specified in sub-clause (e) was to give security of tenure to a tenant of such premises. If a tenant of a non-residential premises was allowed to be evicted on the ground of personal requirement by the landlord, it would have had the effect of completely dislocating the business of the tenant and this in turn could have grave consequences on the social and economic fabric of the country, besides causing untold misery to the tenant. Therefore, there is a clear object behind classification of the premises into residential and non-residential.”
Court Observed that, in H.C. Sharma case, it was not considered that whether the reason/cause which supplied rational to the classification continued to subsist even after lapse of 44 years and whether the tenants of premises let for non-residential purposes should continue to avail the benefit of implicit exemption from eviction in the case of bona fide requirement of the landlord despite sea saw change in the housing scenario in Delhi and substantial increase in the availability of buildings and premises which could be let for non-residential or commercial purposes.
Therefore, the reason/cause which prompted the Division Bench of the High Court to sustain the differentiation/classification of the premises with reference to the purpose of their user, is no longer available for negating the challenge to Section 14(1)(e) on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, and such arbitrary classification cannot be upheld and it was held that S. 14(1)(e) of the Act is ultra vires the Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The court struck down the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e) so that the remaining part thereof may read as under: "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."
The appeals were allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside and Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act was partly struck down.