Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Interpretation of S. 14(1)(e) to be considered by Supreme court (again)

The Supreme Court of India will hear two cases relating to Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act) challenging its own interpretation of the provision laid down in the 2008 judgment of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Anr. .The two petitioners, Vinod Kumar and Ram Gopal, have challenged the interpretation of Section 14 (1)(e) of the Supreme Court in the above judgment on the ground that it is contrary to two earlier decisions of the Court on this aspect..A Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and AM Sapre granted leave in the petition filed by Vinod Kumar while a Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer granted leave in the petition filed by Ram Gopal..Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan along with advocate Uday Gupta appeared for the petitioner/ appellants while advocate Mohit Chaudhary appeared for the respondents..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.”.The Supreme Court in its 2008 judgment of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India & Anr 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 are 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.”.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 has contended that the above decision in Gian Devi Anand was ignored by the Division Bench in Satywati Sharma..“Despite noting that a Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court had 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 purposes as well, a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges contrary to the view expressed by a Constitution Bench chose to re-write the provision which course was not adopted by the Constitution Bench itself and had left the matter to the Legislature.”.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..The Court granted leave in both cases and has posted them for hearing on November 15, 2017. .Read the order dated July 10: