Holding

The Supreme Court held that the bona‑fide requirement is common to both Sections 14(1)(e) and 14‑D, and that a petition may be converted to Section 14‑D; the widow's claim was bona‑fide, warranting eviction.

Summary

The appellant, a widow of the original landlord S.N. Kapoor, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The Rent Controller held the claim not bona‑fide, and the Delhi High Court dismissed both the revision and the widow's application to convert the petition to one under Section 14‑D. The Supreme Court held that a bona‑fide requirement is essential for both sections and that the High Court erred in refusing conversion, noting that the widow’s need was genuine despite residing in another city. Consequently, the Court allowed the conversion, declared the widow’s claim bona‑fide, and granted eviction with a one‑year vacate period. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Issues considered

The requirement of bona‑fide need for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Whether a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) can be converted to one under Section 14‑D when the landlord is a widow.
Whether the widow's claim for possession is bona‑fide despite her residence in another city.
Whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to refuse such conversion.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 7
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 14-B, s. 14-C, s. 14-D, s. 19, s. 25-B

Subjects

Rent controlEvictionBona fide requirementSection 14(1)(e)Section 14-DWidow's rightConversion of petitionDelhi Rent Control ActLandlord‑tenant

Judgment

S.N. KAPOOR (DEAD) BY HIS LRS. A
v.
BASANT LAL KHATRI AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 5, 2001

[M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction:

Delhi Rent Colltrol Act 1958:
c
Section 14( I)( e>-Eviction petition-Bona.fide requirement-Prindples-
Held: The choice of proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely.fanciful-

-- The requirement must not only be bona.fide but also genuine-It should not be
a pretext only to get rid of the tenant.

D
Section 14MD-Eviction petition-Im1nediate possession o,f pre1nises-
Recovery o.f-Laiullady 's right-Held : The landlady must be a widow, the
premises 1nust be required.for her own need and that the need nutst be bona.fide
and not a .feigned one.

Eviction petition-Conversion of-From one under S.14(J)(e) lo one E
under S.14-D-Held: The common determining .factor under both cases being
the "Bona fides" there is no it11pedi111ent for such conversion or alteration-
High Court erred iii refusing such conversion.

The appellant-landlord, the original owner of the suit premises, filed F
a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of bona .fide
requirement of the suit premises for the appellant under Section 14(l)(e) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The trial court held that the requirement
of the appellant was not bona.fide.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision before the High Court and
G
during the pendency of the revision the appellant expired. Thereafter, the
appellant's widow filed an application for conversion of the eviction peti·
tion to one under Section 14-D of the Act. The High Court rejected the
application. Subsequently, the revision was also dismissed on merits. Hence
this appeal. H
33
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Allowing the app~al, the Court

HELD : 1. So far as Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

B
1958 is concerned, the bona .fide nature of the requirement need be estab·
lished for getting an order of eviction and even in the ab~nce of a specific
stipulation in this regard this Court, in order to make the enabling power
under Section 14-D of the Act to be more reasonable, read into it also the
-
need to substantiate that the request of the widow to recover p0ssession of
the premises for her own residence should be bona .fide. The common
determining factor being the "Bona .fides" in both cases, and the landlady
seeks an adjudication on the basis of materials already on record there
c should be no impediment for the Authorities/Courts functioning: even
under the Act to permit such conversion or alteration and consider the
claims made under the altered provision of law. The High Court erred in

D
refusing to allow the application for modification of the claim made" under
Section 14(1)(e) into one under Section 14-D, for being considered on its
merits. (38-D-E·F·G]
-
Surjit Singh Kalra v. U.0.1., (1991] 2 SCC 87, EMC Steel Ltd. v. Union
of India, (1991] 2 SCC 101 and V. Rajaswari v. Bombay Tyres lntdl. Ltd.,
(1995] Supp. 3 SCC 172, relied on.
E
2•. Thmigh the choice of proclaimed need cannot be whimsiCal or
merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in
favour of the landlady too aud courts should not also impose its own
. wisdom forcibly upon the landlady to arrange her own affairs, according
to their own perception carried away only by the interests or hardship of
F the tenant and inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order. of
eviction. In adjudging the claim under Section 14-D what is required to be
substantiated is that the landlady is a widow and that she wants the
premises for her own residence and that the claim by her is bona .fide and
not a feigned one. So far as a claim under Section 14(1)(e) is concerned, the
G very requirement has to be shown not only to be bona fide but the move of
the landlord/landlady to seek the eviction of the tenant must be ge~uine.
As far as the claim under Section 14-D is concerned, the widow-landlady's
need for her own residence is recognised statutorily to be a valid one, but
the move or request made to avail of the special benefit must be shown to
H be bona .fide and not a pretext only to get rid of the tenant.[39~C·D·E]
I
S.N. KAPOOR v. BASANT LAL KHATRI [RAJU, J.] 35
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7517 of A
2001.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.2000 of the Delhi High Court
in C.M. No. 5154/99 in C.R. No. 513 of 1998.

WITH B

C.A. No. 7518 of 2001"

Kailash Vasdev, Sanjay K. Shandilya and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the
Appellants. C
Prag P. Tripathy, Jayant Nath, B.C. Pandey, Ms. Anupam Grover and
.-. Rakesh K. Sharma for the Respondents .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
RAJU, J. Leave granted.

The Landlady is the appellant in the above appeals of which one arising
out of the order dated 19.1.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court in C.M. No.5154/99 in C.R. No.513/98 rejecting the prayer
for converting the application filed initially for eviction under Section 14 (1) E
(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 into one under Section 14 - D of the
said Act and to consider the claim of the Landlady accordingly and the other
arising out of the order dated 3.7.2000 made in Civil Revision No.573/98
dismissing the main revision petition.
F
Late Shri S.N. Kapoor, the original owner of the premises at A-278,
Defence Colony, New Delhi, was serving in the Indian Army and after his
retirement he established his residence ai Bhopal with his wife and 5 children
in lhe year 1968. The premises in question at New Delhi was under tenancy.
In 1982 the eldest son was said to have got married. Late Shri Kapoor and his
wife began residing with their eldest son and daughter in law. After the Bhopal G
Gas Leak Accident, Late Shri Kapoor was also affected with serious ophthalmic
problems ahd he was undergoing treatment in All India Institute of Medical
· Sciences at New Delhi. In view of all the above, he called UP"n the respondents
to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises for him to occupy by
shifting his residence from Bhopal to New Delhi. Since the request was not H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A complied with in 1986, Eviction Case No. E.119/86 for eviction of the respondent
No. I came to be instituted also for the reason that the relationship between Mrs.
Kapoor and her daughter in law were getting strained and in the advance age
of Mr. Kapoor he wanted to live in peace with his wife at Delhi. After getting
leave to defend, the first respondent opposed the application contesting the
B bona .fides of the landlord.

After trial by an order dated 16.3.98, the Additional Rent Controller held
that though late Shri Kapoor was the owner of the property in question and did
not own any other property in Delhi, yet the claim for owner's occupation was
not bona .fide, in that the desire to shift to Delhi was not in accordance with
c law. Aggrieved, late Shri Kapoor filed Civil Revision No.513/98 before the
High Court of Delhi. Pending disposal of the revision, on 1.4.99 Shri S.N.
Kappor expired and his wife was brought on record by way of substitution to •
enable her to continue the proceedings. Thereafter, the wife of Shri Kapoor
filed an application under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure read
D with Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 that the petition filed
for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) be converted as one under Section 14-D of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, she having become a widow entitled to
recovery of possession and her claims considered accordingly. As noticed
earlier, this application came to be rejected by an Order dated 19.1.2000 on the
E ground that the High Court had no such powers to order for such conversion
and the decision in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 172 in which this Court had an
occasion to entertain such a claim for conversion could not be a precedent for
the High Court to do so since this Court had wide powers under Article 142
of the Constitution of India. It is against this order of rejection, SLP (c)
No.12298/2000 came to be filed. Subsequently, the revision was also heard
F on merits of the claim under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act and came to be rejected
resulting in the filing of SLP (c) No.13103/2000.

Heard, Shri Kailash Vasdev, Senior Advocate, for the appellant iii both
the appeals and Shri Prag P. Tripathy, Senior Advocate, for the respondents.
G Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the orders of the
Rent Controller as well as that of the learned Single Judge in the High Court
are contrary to law and that the correct principles governing the claim have not
been properly applied to the indisputable material on record and that grave
miscarriage of justice resulted thereby. Argued the learned counsel for the
H appellant that on the indisputable materials on record the High Court ought to
S.N. KAPOOR v. BASANT LAL KHATRI [RAJU, l.] 37
have allowed the application for conversion as prayed for and ordered eviction A
of the respondent and the conclusion to the contrary are unsustainable in law.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contending with equal force
- urged that the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as
the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the question of bona fide need
for owner's occupation of the premises in question are well merited and do not B
call for any interference in this appeal. It was also further contended that
even under Section 14-D of the Act, the essential pre-requisite of the claim
being bona fide need to be substantiated to get relief and in as much as there
had been concurrent findings against the claim, no exception could be taken
to the order passed declining the request for conversion of the claim even on
merits de hors the question of entertainabilty of the same at that stage of the
c
proceedings.
- The plea based on concurrent findings, in our view, could not come to
the rescue of the tenant in this case, having regard to the perfunctory nature
of the said findings and want of proper consideration and lack of application D
of relevant principles governing the issue. When the Court exercising jurisdiction
under Section 25-B(S) was obliged to objectively consider whether the order
passed by the Rent Controller was "according to law", but has miserably failed
to do so resulting in miscarriage of justice, the High Court must be held to have
failed to exercise its powers and consequently, this Court is bound to interfere E
in the matter to render real and substantive justice. All the more so when as
in this case it is shown that improper and wrong inferences have been drawn
in utter disregard of the materials on record and too technical a view has been
found to have been taken.

So far as the challenge made to the order of the High Court rejecting the F
prayer to modify the relief claimed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for
eviction into one under Section 14-D, the manner of disposal adopted seems
to be to summary and cursory. The Court has not chosen to, except stating that
this Court had such powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, has
-
• not assigned any reason as to why it cannot do so, if the circumstances so
warranted or justified in a given case. The tenability or otherwise of such a
G

claim would depend upon the question as to whether a decision on the claim
based upon such altered provision would require any fresh enquiry and proof
of new facts, before it could be taken up for consideration. In Surjit Singh
Kalra v. U.0.1. & Anr., [1991] 2 SCC 87, this Court held that Sections 14-B H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A to 14-0 though different from proviso to Section 14(l)(e) and the tenant cannot
contest the application on grounds specified therein, can and is entitled to show
that landlord's requirement was not bona fide, even when made u~der Section
14-0. In EMC Steel Limited, Calcutta v. Union of India & Anr., etc. [1991] 2
SCC JOI also this Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section
...
B 14-0, observed that the special right conferred upon the widow under Section
140 can be availed of by her only once and. she had to also prove h~r bona
fide need like other landlords and that the restriction under Section 19 on re-
letting after recovery of possession will also apply to her. This Court in V.
Rajaswari v. Bombay Tyres lntdl. Ltd., [1995] Suppl.3 SCC 172 countenanced
such a claim of the widow in an appeal filed underArticle 136 of the Constitution
c of India, even when the claim under Section 14(1)(e) came to be rejected by
the courts below. In that case, this Court held that "we are of the view that
under Section 14-0, the tenant has practically no defence whatever. All that
has to be proved under the said Section extracted above are - (i) that the
landlady is a widow and (ii) the premises are required by her for her own
D residence''. The Court further observed that the fact that she is living with her
daughter or any other person, is no ground to say that the premises in question
is not required for her residence, So far as Section 14(1)(e) is concerned, the
bona.fide nature of the requirement need be established for getting an order of
eviction and even in the absence of a specific stipulation in this regard this
E Court, in order to make the enabling power under Section 14-0 to be more
reasonable read into it also the need to substantiate that the request of the
widow to recover possession of the premises for her own residence should be
bona .fide. The common determining factor being the "Bona fides" in both
cases, and the landlady seeks an adjudication on the basis of materials already
F on record there should be no impediment for the Authorities/Courts functioning
even under the Act to permit such conversion or alteration and consider the
claims made under the altered provision of law. As a matter of fact subsequent
developments and altered circumstances were held to be relevant in adjudging
the nature and character of the claim made, at all stages of the proceedings. The

G
High Court, in our view, erred in refusing to allow the application for modi~cation
of the claim made under Section 14(l)(e) into one under Section 14~0, for
being considered on its merits. The order dated 19.1.2000 in CM 5154/99 is
-
set aside and the appeal filed against the same is allowed and application of
the appellant for modification of the claim is allowed.

H That the landlord has no other building in New Delhi is not in contrpversy
S.N. KAPOOR v. BASANT LAL KHATRI [RAJU, J.] 39
and it is also a fact $pecifically noticed also by the Rent Controller. The A
question that does really arise for consideration is as to whether the claim of
the landlady or the need to occupy the premises at New Delhi, in the
circumstances, pleaded or demonstrated could be said to be not bona .fide or
reasonable merely because the landlady is residing, for the time being, at
Bhopal - altogether a different city in a different State also, along with her son B
and his family notwithstandirig her decision to live separately at New Delhi.
The need felt by the landlady to do so does appear to be sincere and honest
and not a mere pretence only to evict the tenant. No material has been brought
on record and no proof has been made by the tenant by any positive material
that it is neither genuine nor bona fitle or reasonable but a mere excuse to get
rid of the tenant. Though the choice or proclaimed need cannot be whimsical
c
or merely fanciful yet certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour
of the landlady too and courts should not also impose its own wisdom forcibly
upon the landlady to arrange her own affairs, according to their own perception
carried away only by the interests or hardship of the tenant and inconvenience
that may result ·to him in passing an order of eviction. In adjudging the claim D
under Section 14-D what is required to be substantiated is that. the landlady is
a widow and that she wants the premises for her own residence and that the
claim by her is bona fide and not a feigned one. So far as a claim under Section
14(I)(e) is concerned, the very requirement has to be shown not only to be

-
bona fide but the move of the landlord/landlady to seek the eviction of the E
tenant must be genuine. As far as the claim under Section 14-D is concerned,
the widow-landlady's need for her own residence is recognized statutorily to
be a valid one, but the move or request made to avail of the special benefit must
be shown to be a bona flde and not a pretext only to get rid of the tenant.
Viewed in the context of the indisputable facts on record that the widow has F
no other premises of her own at New Delhi and that she wants to reside away
• from Bhopal and aloof from her daughter-in-law are by themselves sufficient
to sustain her claim. The rejection of the claim seems to be on hyper technical
appreciation of the materials on record and does no.t constitute a real, proper
and effective consideration at all. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we find
the need and requirement of the appellant-landlady to lie bona .fide and
G
cons~quently an order of eviction shall follow. We allow the claim of the
landlady for eviction and the appeal against the order dated 3.7.2000 shall stand
allowed.

So far as tne time to be granted to the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A premises is concerned, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
fairly consented for one year's time, subject, of course, to the usual undertakings

B
to be given by the tenant. We accept the same and, accordingly, give one year
time to the tenant "to deliver vacant premises and this is subject to the condition
that the first respondent - tenant shall file in this Court the usual Undertaking
within two weeks from the date of this judgment. The parties will bear their
-
respective costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.

,

•