Holding

Section 14‑C grants a distinct, independent right to a retired Central Government or Delhi Administration employee to recover immediate possession of a tenanted dwelling for his own residence, and the application cannot be rejected on the ground of accommodation sufficiency.

Summary

Anand Swaroop Vohra, a retired Central Government employee, applied under Section 25‑B(1) read with Section 14‑C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of his tenant on the ground that the premises were needed for his own residence because the accommodation he occupied was insufficient. The Rent Controller rejected the application, relying on earlier judgments (Madan Lal Lamba and Narain Khamman) that the sufficiency of a landlord’s accommodation could not be examined under Section 14‑C. The Delhi High Court affirmed the rejection. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the language of Section 14‑C is clear and confers a distinct right on retired employees to recover possession for bona‑fide personal residence, independent of Section 14(1)(e). Consequently, the application was maintainable and could not be dismissed on the ground of accommodation sufficiency. The Court set aside the lower courts’ orders and directed the Rent Controller to dispose of the application according to law.

Issues considered

Whether a retired Central Government employee can invoke Section 14‑C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to recover possession of tenanted premises for his own residence when he already occupies another dwelling unit.
Whether the sufficiency or insufficiency of the landlord’s existing accommodation can be considered under Section 14‑C, or only under Section 14(1)(e).
Whether the principles laid down in Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain and Madan Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal are applicable to applications under Section 14‑C.
Whether the rights conferred under Sections 14‑B to 14‑D are independent of the provisions of Section 14(1)(e).

Legislation cited

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 14-A, s. 14-B, s. 14-C, s. 14-D, s. 25-B(1), s. 25-B(5)

Subjects

Delhi Rent Control ActSection 14-Cretired government employeeevictionbona fide requirementsummary procedurelandlord rightstenant defencestatutory interpretation

Judgment

A ANAND SWAROOP VOHRA
v.
BHIM SEN BHARI AND ANR.

JULY 21, 1994

B [S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, .J.J.J

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14-C~ 14( l)(e) and 25-B{li).

Classified landlord, Retired Central Govemmelll Employe<-Right to •
C recover bnnzediate possession of tenanted prenzises for own residence under
section 14(C}-VVhether different front and independent of right under section
14(l){e}-'-Scope of tenant'.» in such a mailer-What is.

The appellant, a retired Central (;overnment employee, filed an
application under section 25-B(I) of the Act read with Section 14(C) of the
D Delhi Rent Conrtol Act, 1958 before the Rent Controller, Delhi seeking
eviction of the Respondents-tenants on the ground that the accommoda-
tion let out to the tenants was re<1uired for his own residence as the
accommi,dation available to him and his family members was not sufli-
cient. The tenants obtained leave to contest the same on the grounds that
E the suffi~iency or insufficiency of accommodation could not be gone into
in an application under Section 14(C). Relying upon the judgment
reported in Madan Lal Lamba v. Tar/ok Sing/I Sehgal, 43 (1991) L>LT 624
and Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985] 1S.C.R.1025 the
Rent Controller rejected the application. The revision application filed by
the appellent was summarily rejected by the High Court.
F
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that the rights conferred upon the classified landlords under Sections 14-B
to 14-D are different from and.independent of the rights under Section
14(l)(e), and consequently, the principles laid down in the cases of Madan
G Lal Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehgal, 43 (1991) DLT 624 and Narain Kham-
man v. Pardwnan Kumar Jain, (1985] 1 S.C.R. 1025 are inapplicable to the _,
instant cases.

On behalf of the Respondents-tenants it was contended thllt once it
was established that the appellant had in his possession a dwelling unit as
H defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, he could not invoke the special
8
AS. VOHRA v. B.S. BHARI 9

provisions of Section 14-C of the Act and that if he feltthat the accommoda- A
lion was insufficient he could only take recourse to the provisions of Section
14(1)(e).

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugoed orders, this
Court
B
HELD. : 1. 111e language of Section 14-C of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 is clear, plain and unambiguous and it admits of only one mean-
ing, to wit, an employee of the Central Government or Delhi Administration
who is retired or is due to retire can exercise his right to recover immediate
possession of his tenanted premises within the time prescribed, if he
rquires the same for his own residence but if he has more than one such c
premises his requirement must be limited to one of his choice. As the
appellant's aJJplication fulfilled all the requirements of the above section it
could not be, therefore, rejected as not maintainable. [15-F-G]

2. It is not the case of the tenant also that except the premises let out D
> to him the appellant has other tenanted premises. In the context of these
undisputed facts, the appellant's application could not be rejected.
[15-D-E]
3. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the application filed
by the appellant in accordance with law. [18-D]
E
Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1025 and
S.P. Jain v. K.M. Gupta, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 411, distinguished.

Swjit singlt Kalra v•.Union of India, [1991] 2 S.C.C. 87, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4848 of f
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.92 of the Delhi High Court
in C.R. No. 209 of 1992.

}
Arun Mohan, P.H. Parekh and Ms. Sadhna Ramachandran for the G
Appellant.

Rajindcr Sachar, Vijay Kish.an, Sandeep Narain and Attar Singh for
the Respondents.

The .I udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi ' .....
High Court dated April 27, 1992 dismissing the application filed by the
appellant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('Act'
for short) for re\ision of the order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated
B February 14, 1992 rejecting his application for recovery of possession of his
tenanted premises made on the ground specified in Section 14-C(l) of the
Act.

The appellant and his brother, the respondent No. 2 herein, are the
C owners of house No. 65/11, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. They let out its
entire ground floor (except the garage) to the respondent No. 1
(hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') in 1959 at a monthly rental of Rs.
300. The appellant, who was an ei;nployee of the Central Government,
. retired on April 30, 1987 and shifted, consequent thereto, from the Govern-
ment quarters allotted to him, to the first floor of the house. The respon-
D dent No.2, who was also an employee of the Central Government, had
earlier shifted to the first floor on his retirement in 1982. Thereafter in 1989
he (the appellant) filed an application under section 25-B(l) of the Act
read with Section 14-C(l) of the Act before the Rent Controller, Delhi
seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the accommodation
E available to him and his family members on the first floor was not sufficient.
On receipt of the summons of the application the tenant entered
appearance and sought - and obtained leave to contest the same on the
•
grounds that the accommodation available to the appellant was more than
sufficient and that, in any case, the sufficiency or insufficiency of accom-
F modation could not be gone into in an application under Section 14-C.

After hearing the parties, the Controller rejected the application
solely on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Madan Lal
Lamba v. Tarlok Singh Sehga~ 43 (1991) DLT 624 wherein it has been held,
relying upon the judgment of this Court in Narain Khamman v. Parduman
G Kumar lain, (1985] 1 S.C.R. 1025 that were a retired Government employee
is in possession of an independent dwelling unit he is not entitled to file
an application under Section 14-C of the Act and that in such an applica-
tion the Controller is not entitled to take into consideration the size of the
family of the landlord and sufficlency or insufficiency of the accommoda-
H tion in his occupation because those considerations can prevail only in an
AS. VOHRA v. B.S. BHARI [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 11

evtct10n petition filed in accordance with clause (e) of the proviso to A
. Section 14(1) of the Act.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his application the appellant filed a
revisional application in the Delhi High Court which was summarily
rejected in view of its decision in Madan Lal Lamba (supra). Hence this B
appeal.

Before we proceed to consider the points raised by the learned
counsel for the parties it will be convenient to refer to the relevant
provisions of the Act. The. Act applies to the premises which are defined
by Section 2 (i) of the Act as meaning, inter alia, any building or part of a C
building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence
or for commercial use or for any other purpose. Chapter lII of the Act
comprising Sections 14 to 25, relates to 'control of eviction of tenants'; and
Section 14(1) thereof lays down that notwithstanding anything to the con-
trary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the D
recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or
Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant. However, the various
' clauses of the proviso thereto lay down certain grounds on which only such
recovery of possession can be ordered and clause (e) thereof permits
eviction of a tenant if the premises let for residential purposes are required
bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for E
any member of his family dependent upon him provided that the landlord
is the owner of the premises and he has no other reasonably suitable
residential accommodation.

By Ordinance 24 of 1975, which was promulgated on December 1, F
1975, and Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 18 of 1976),
which replaced the former, certain changes were introduced in the Act.
Section 14-A was inserted in Chapter lII providing certain rights to a
person occupying residential premises allotted to him by the Central
Government or any other local authority in that if he is required to vacate G
such residential accommodation on the ground that he owns in the Union
; Territory of Delhi, a house in his name or in the name of his spouse or
dependent children, he can recover immediate possession of his premises
let out by him notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act or
in any other law for the time being in force. However, in view of the proviso
to sub-section (1) of the above Section, if such person owns in the Union H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Territory of Delhi two or more dwelling houses, either in his own name or
in the name of his wife or dependent child, he cannot recover possession
of more than one of such dwelling houses and he has to select one of them.
Chapter III-A, containing Sections 25A to 25C, was simultaneously intro-
duced by the above amending Act to provide summary trial of the applica-
tions filed by the landlords claff under Section 14-A and also applications
B filed by other landlords for bona fide requirement of their premises under
Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

The Act was again amended in 1988 by the Amending Act 57 of 1988
to carve out some more classes of landlords to enable them to recover
C immediate possession of premises let out by them through introduction of
Sections 14-B to 14-D. While released or retired persons from armed
forces or the dependents of the members of armed forces who had been
killed in action are covered by Section 14-B, the retired employees of the
Central Government and of the Delhi Administration are covered by
Section 14-C and widows are covered by Section 14-D. T~e landlords
D classified in Sections 14- B, 14-C and 14-D have also been given the benefit
of invoking the summary trial under Chapter III-A. Section 14-C of the Act
with which we are mainly concerned in this appeal reads as under :

"(1) Where the landlord is a retired employee of the Central
E Government or of the Delhi Administration, and the premises let
out by him are required for his own residence, such employee may,
within one year from the date of his retirement or within a period
of one year from the date of commencement of the Delhi Rent
Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, whichever is later, apply to the •.
Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such
F premises.

(2) Where the landlord is an employee of the Central Government
or the Delhi Administration and has a period of less than one year
preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by
him are required by him for his own residence after his retirement,
G
he may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of
his retrrement, apply to the Controller for recovering the immedi-
ate possession of such premises.

(3) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section
H (2) has let ont more than one premises, it shall be open to him to
AS. VOHRA v. B.S. BHARI [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 13

make an application under that sub-section in respect of only one A
of the premises chosen by him."

• " The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Controller
and the High Court failed to appreciate that Madan Lal's case (supra) had
no manner of application to the instant case ha,ing regard to the distinct B
and different language of Section 14-A and 14-C and its allied Sections
14-B and 14-D. Besides, the learned counsel submitted, the later judgment
of this Court in Sutjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India, [1991) 2 SCC 87 clearly
laid down that in an application filed under Section 14-B, Section 14-C or
Section 14-D the tenant's right to contest the application was restricted to
• the parameters of the respective sections and that he could not widen the C
scope of his defence by relying upon Section 14(1)(e). In other words,
according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the rights conferred
upon the classified landlords under Sections 14-B to 14-D are different
from and independent of the Section 14(1)(e). Resultantly, the principles
laid down in the case of Narain Khamman (supra) would not have any D
manner of application herein, argued the learned counsel.
l
In responding to the above submissions, the learned counsel for the
tenant strongly urged that once it was established that the appellant bad in
his possession a dwelling unit, which answered the description of premises
within the meaning of Section 2(i)of the Act, he could not invoke the E
special provisions of Section. 14-C of the Act and that if he felt that the
accommodation was insufficient be could only take resort to the provisions
of Section 14(1)(e). According to the learned counsel as the provisions of
Sections 14-A to 14-D were pari matria the principle laid down by this
Court in the case of Narain Khamman (supra) and quoted with approval p
in S.P. Jain v. KM. Gupta, (1987] 1 SCR 411 would squarely apply.

The questions which came up for considereation in Narain
Khamman's case (supra) were, (i) whether a Government servant, who,
consequent upon service of a notice upon him in accordance with Section G
14-A(l) of the Act had already vacated the Government accommodation
}
and shifted to other premises belonging to him, could still invoke the
summary jurisdiction of Chapter III A of the Act to evict his tenant and,
if so, (ii) whether he could maintain such application on the ground that
the accommodation available to him was not sufficient. In answering these
questions this Court laid down the following three propositions : H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A "(1) It is not necessary that a person in occupation of residential
premises alloted to him by the Central Government or a local
authority who is required by or in pursuance of a general or special
order made by that Government or authority to vacate such ac- ' .
commodation or, in default, to incur certain obligations, such as
payment of market rent, on the ground that he owns in the Union
B
Territory of Delhi a residential accommodation either in his own
'name or in the name of his wife or dependent child should be in
occupation of the accommodation allotted to him on the date when
h'e files an eviction application under Section 14-A(l) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958, to recover possession of the residential
c
.. premises which he so own and.which has been let by him. '
1(2) If such person has, however, other premises which he owns
.either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent
'child which are available to him for his residential accommodation
'or .into which he has already moved, he cannot maintain an ap-
D plication under Section 14-A(l) of the Act.

'(3) Even if the other premises owned by him either in his own
name or in the name of his wife or dependent child are not
'reasonably suitable for his accommodation, he cannot maintain an
E application under Section 14-A(l) but must file an application on
tile ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub- section
(1) of Section 14 of the Act."

In S.P. Jain's case (supra) this Court referred to and relied upon
Narain Khamman's case (supra) while dealing with and disposing of an
F application made under Sections 24-A, 24-B of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with the following
words.:
"
'Narain Khamman v. Parduman Ki•mar Jain, (1985) 1 S.C.R. 1025,
was dealing with section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
G ' which is more or less similar to the section involved in the present
Iappeal. At page 1032 of the report the position has been discussed.
There it was observed that if a person had, however, other premises
, which he owned either in his own name or in the name of his wife
cir dependent child, which were available to him for residential
H ' accommodation or into which he had already moved in, he could
A.S. VOHRA v. B.S. BHARI [MK MUKHERJEE, J.) 15

not maintain an application under Section 14-A of the Delhi Rent A
Control Act."

From a plain reading of Section 14-C of the Act it is evident that an
employee of the Central Government or Delhi Administration who is
retired or is on the verge of retirement can recover immediate possession
of his tenanted premises if the same are required by him for his own B
residence, by filing an application before the Rent Controller within the
time prescribed under sub-section (1) and (2), as the case may be, How-
ever, if such a person has more than one tenanted premises he has to
confine his requirement in respect of only one such premises, according to
his choice. C
It is not in dispute that after retirement from the Central Govern-
ment service the appellant herein filed an application in accordance with
sub-section (1) of Section 14-C within the period prescribed therein on the
ground that he required the premises let out to the tenant for his own

- residence as the accommodation available to him on the first floor of the
house in question was insufficient. It is not the case of the tenant also that
except the premises let out to him, the appellant has other tenanted
premises. In the context of these undisputed facts the only question that
D

falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether the application could
be rejected on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court in Narain E
Khamman's case (supra). Having given our careful consideration to all
aspects of the matt.er we feel no hesitation in answering the question in the
negative for more than one reason.

The langauge of Section 14-C is clear, plain and unambiguous and it
admits of only one meaning, to wit, an employee of the Central Govern- F
ment or Delhi Administration who is retired or is due to retire can exercise
his right to recover immediate possession of his tenanted premises within
the time prescribed, if he requires the same for his own residence but if
he has more than one such premises his requirement must be limited to
one of his choice. As the appellant's application fulfilled all the require- G
> ments of the above section it could not be, therefore, rejected as not
maintainable.

We next find that in following the principles laid down by this Court
in Narain Khamman's case (supra) the Delhi High Court observed in
Madan Lal's case (supra) that there was not dispute that the summary H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A procedure for eviction prescribed under Sections 14-A, 14-B, 14-C and
14-D was pari matria. If Section 14-A is read in juxtaposition with the other
sections, namely, 14-B, 14-C and 14-D it will be obvious that the above
observation is incorrect. While the former speaks of only the right of a
landlord, who has been served with a notice to vacate the Government
accommodation allotted to him, to recover immediate possession of his
B
tenanted premises without reference to his requirement of such premises
for his own residence, the exercise of right under the latter is dependent
upon such requirement. On a careful perusal of the judgment in Narain
Khamman's case (supra) we find that absence of any such 'requirment'
clause in Section 14-A primarily weighed with this Court in laying down
c the principles formulated therein.

The last and the most formidable reason for which the orders under
.challenge cannot be sustained is the decision of this Court in Surjit Singh's
case (supra), wherein this Court had· to consider the provisions of Sections
D 14-B to 14-D, in general and 14-B in particular with reference to Section
14(1)(e). In so doing the Court first consideration the rights of the
landlords classified under Section 14-B to 14-D vis-a-vis Section 14(1)(e)
and observed as follows : ·

"Before the introduction of Sections 14-B to 14-D Section 14(1)(e)
E was the only remedy available to all landlords except those covered
under Section 14-A to recover possession of thier premises. The
Controller shall give the tenant leave to contest the application, if
the tenant in his affidavit discloses such facts as would disentitle
the landlords from obtaining an order for recovery of possession
F of the premises on the grounds specified under Section 14(1)(e).
It is but natural when the landlord brings an action for recovery of
possession of the premises covered under Section 14(1)(e), the tenant
has the legitimate right to show that the landlord does not qualify
under or satisfy the requirements of Section 14(l}(e). But today the
remedy under Section 14(l)(e) is available only to landlords in
G general or the landlords who are not classified landlords under
Sections i4-B to 14-D. The classified landlords have been conferred
with certain rights which are different from and independent of the
rights under Article (sic) 14(l)(e)."

H (emphasis supplied)
AS. VOHRA v. B.S. BHARI [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.] 17

The Court then deliberated upon the contention of the tenant that A
notwithstanding the independent and specified rights of the classified
landlords provided under Sect.ions 14-B to 14-D, Section 14(1)(e) was the
weapon of defence for the tenant event against such applications and
negatived the same with the follo~..ng, amongst other, observations :
B
"When an applicat.ion is filed under Sect.ion 14-B, a copy of the
application should be sent to· the tenant by making necessary
amendment to the prescribed form and omitt.ing the other refer-
ences which are not relevant. If the applicat.ion is filed under
Section 14-B, the summons should state that the applicat.ion is filed
under Section 14-B, and not under Section 14(1)(e) or 14-A. C
Likewise if the applications are under Sections 14-C to 14- D, the
summons should state accordingly. That would indicate the scope
of the defence of the tenant for obtaining leave referred to in
sub-section (5) .of Section 25-B. Under sub-section (5), the tenant
could contest the application by obtaining leave with reference to D
the particular claim in the application of the landlord depending
upon whether it is under Section 14-A, 14-B, 14-C or 14-D or under
Sect.ion 14(1)(e). The tenant cannot be allowed to take up defence
under Section 14(J)(e) as against an application under Section 14-B.
There cannot be any defence unconnected with or unrelated to the
daim or right of the plaintiff or applicant. That would be against our E
jurisprndence. It is unlikely that the legislature intended the result

- for which the counsel for the tenant contended. It will be a
mechanical interpretation of the enactment defeat.ing its purpose.
Such an interpretation has never found favour with the courts
which have always adopted a purposive approach to the interpreta- F
lion of statutes. Section 14- B and other allied provisions ought to
receive a purposeful construction and sub-section (5) of Section
25-B should be so construed as to implement the object and
purpose of Sect.ions 14-B to 14-D. It is the du(Y, of the court to
give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in
Sections 14-B to 14- D." G

(emphasis supplied)

However, while laying down that a defence under section 14(1)(e) was not
available to a tenant against applications made under Sections 14-B to H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 14-D, this Court hastened to add :

"The tenant of course is entitled to raise all relevant contentions
as against the claim of the classified .landlords. The fact that there
is no reference to the word bo11a fide requirement in Sections 14-B
to 14-D does not absolve the landlord from proving that his
B requirement is bo11a fide or. the tenant from showing that it is not
bo11a fide. In fact every claim for eviction against a tenant must be
a bo11a fide one. There is also enough indication in support of this
construction from the title of Section 25-B which states "special
procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the
C ground of bona fide requirement."

On the condusion as above, we set aside the impugned orders and
direct the Renl Controller to dispose of the application filed by the
appellant in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made
hereinbefore. The appeal is thus allowed with costs.
D
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

...