Holding

The Act applies to the cantonment building, but because the landlord already occupies a separate dwelling house (the ground floor), the urgency provisions of sections 24B and 24C cannot be used to evict the tenant.

Summary

The case concerned a government servant, S.P. Jain, who was ordered to vacate his government‑allotted quarters and sought immediate possession of the first floor of his own house in Meerut cantonment, which was let to K.M. Gupta. Jain filed an eviction petition under sections 24B and 24C of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming that he owned a residential building in the same area and therefore was entitled to the urgency procedure. The respondent argued that Jain already occupied the ground floor, which constituted a dwelling house, and that the Act did not apply to the cantonment at the time of filing. The Supreme Court examined whether the Act, as extended by notifications under the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, applied to the building and interpreted the term “dwelling house”. It held that the Act did apply, but the ground‑floor portion was a separate dwelling house, so the urgency provisions could not be invoked. Consequently, the High Court’s order setting aside the eviction was affirmed.

Issues considered

The applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (sections 24A‑24C) to a building situated within a cantonment area.
Whether a landlord who occupies part of a building (ground floor) can invoke the urgency provisions of s.24B/24C to evict a tenant from the remaining part (first floor).
The proper interpretation of the term “dwelling house” for the purpose of the Act.
Whether the provisions of the Act can be applied retrospectively to an application filed before the notifications came into force.

Legislation cited

Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957s. 3
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14A
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21, s. 21(1-A), s. 24A, s. 24B, s. 24C

Subjects

cantonmentdwelling houseurgency evictiongovernment servantsummary proceedingsrent controlinterpretation of statutes

Judgment

S.P. JAIN
v. A
KRISHNA MOHAN GUPTA & ORS.

DECEMBER 4, 1986

[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SlNGH, JJ.] B

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972, ss. 24A, 24B and 24C-I.andlord Governmen1 Servant-Directed to
vacate government accommodation-Landlord in possession of ground floor
of his own house- Whether entitled to. evict tenant in summary proceedings
'dweliing house'-Meaning of
c
Words & Phrases-'Dwelling House'-Meaning of

·'1 The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act
of1972 was amended in 1976 and Chapter IVA was added. Section 24A, s. 24B
and s. 24C are contained in the said Chapter. They provide for summary trial of D
eviction petitions in certain circumstances. By a N otifieation dated 17th
February, 1982 issued under s.3 of the Cantonments (E.dension of Rent
Control Laws) Act of 1957, the·Government extended to all the cantonments in
the State of Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the Rent Act.

The appellant-a government servant, was in occupation of the E
>. government accommodation at Meerut. He was also owner of a house situated
in the cantonment area in Meerut. The house had a ground floor and a first
floor with common bathroom and latrine situated on the ground floor. It had
also a common courtyard and a common entrance. The ground floor of the
,... house was in his possession while the first floor had been let out to the
respondent-tenant. F

i.'ursuant to a notice received· by the appellant-landlord to va~te the
government quarter, he fded an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant
in respect of the first floor of the premises under s. 24 C of the U .P. Urban
Jluildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 on 14th
December, 1979. The resp01:1dent-tenant contested the application on the G
ground that the appellant-landlord h_ad two residential houses-one in which
he was living and the other in which the respondent-tenant was living and since
the appellant-landlord was in possession of a residential accommodation, he
-¥ had no right to get another residential accommodation vacated from the tenant
under the provisions of s. 24B or 24Cof the said Act. The Delegated Authority
H

411.
412 SUPREME COUR r REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A allowed the petition by its order dated 17th August, 1981 and its order was
confirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge.

Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, the respondent-
tenant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was
contended by the respondent-tenant before the High Court that (i) Chapter IV-
B A had been applied to the Cantonment areas on a subsequent date, i.e. 27th
February, 1982, the Acf being not applicable to the accommodation in question
in November, 1979 when the application under s.248 of the Act was fded by the
respondent and as such the same was liable to be dismissed; and (ii) that as the
appellant-landlord was living in the ground floor of the said house, petition -.\
under s.248 was not maintainable. The High Court upheld the second
C contention of the respondent-tenant and set aside the order of eviction without
deciding the question as to whether the Act would apply to buildings
constructed and situated within the can~onment limit.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

D HELD: l(i) The whole purpose behind s.24A or s.14A of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 which are in pari mater.a is that when a landlord or a person
who is in occupation of a government accommodation and has to leave that
accommodation and yet he has residential building in the area in his own name
or in the name of any member of his fa mil y, then such a person or landlord will
have a right accrued to him to recover immediate possession Of the building let
E out by him. The rationale behind these pwvisions or similar provisions is that
when a government servant lets out his house and is without residential
premises then if he is the owner of any residential building either in his name or
in the name of any member of his family then he has a right to ask for immediate
recovery of the said residential building. lt is an urgency provision to help the
government servant to have residential acmmmodation vacated if he is obliged
F to vacate his governmental residential ac·:ommodation. The proviso to s.24B
deals with the situation where the landlord has more than one dwelling house,
he will exercise a choice in respect of orn,, [420 E-F]
l(il) Sub-s. (1) of s.248 uses th" expression "if the landlord owns
residential building" and the proviso uses the expression "dwelling houses". In
G the Act in question, however, there is no definition provided except that
'building' is defined in clause (i) to s. 3 >1hich is not relevant for the present
purpose. It is therefore necessary to d"termine what kind of a residential
building or dwelling house must a landlord possess to be entitled to the urgency
procedure of s. 24A to 24C of the Ad to recover immediate possession.
[420 G, H- 421 A]
H 2(i) Law should take pragmatic vfow of the matter and respond to the
,
S.P. JAIN v. K.M. GUPTA 413

purpose for which it was made and also take cognizance of the current {
capabilities of technology and life-style of the community. The purpose of law
provides a good guide to the interpretation of the meaning of the Act. The
legislative futility is to be ruled out so long as interpretative possibility permits.
(421 H-422 A]

2(ii) A dwelling house means a building used or constructed or adapt~d
';I to be used wholly or principally for human habitation and dwelling house B
includes any part of a house where that part is occupied separately as a dwelling
house. Therefore, to be a dwelling house or residential accommodation it must
be capable of being separately enjoyed and whether or not the premises in
) - question can be so enjoyed does not depend merely because that a portion .
· cannot be locked up independently or separately.
c
Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P. T. Menghani and Anr., [1977]3 SCR
312, relied upon.

Stroud's "Judicial Dictionary"Vol. 2 at page 858 (4th Edition); Corpus
Juris Secundum Vol. 28 pages 604-605, Words and Phrases legally defined,
D
2nd Edition, Vo!. 2 page 127 and Black's Law Dictionary 1979, 5th Edition
page 454, referred to.
3. Jn order to determine whether two parts of a building consist of one or
more dwelling houses, the tests to be applied are; (i) consider the building and
see whether it constitutes a whole house or a part of the house; (ii) if one part is
reasonably needed for convenient and comfortable occupation and enjoyment E· ·
of the other part of the building then both the parts of the building constitute
one dwelling house and to arrive at this finding the relevant factors to be taken
in consideration are: (a) the·situation; (b) entrance; (c) the Municipal Number;
(d) the nature of the construction; (e) inter communication between the two
.parts; (I) completeness and independence of each unit; and (g) other relevant
.material circumstances. None of these taken singly is decisive but the F
cumulative effect should be considered. [422 D-F]

In the instant case, after the death of the mother of the appellant the
portion was separately let out and a tenant used to occupy the said portion
separately. Therefore, in view of the fact that the premises can be enjoyed with
common facilities for dwelling purposes, it would constitute a separate and G
independent dwelling houses and the High Court in the facts of the case was not
;:.f in error in holding that the two parts could be separately enjoyed. If the portion
in the occupation of the appellant could not separately dwelled in by the
appellant, it was only then that the extraordinary provisions of s. 24A, 248 and
~C could be resorted to. Otherwise the owner or the landlord is entitled to take
recourse to other provisions of the Rent Act contending that the premi•es in H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) I S.C.R.

A question is reasonably required bonafide for the landlord's use but in the
situation like the present, the landlord was not entitled to take recourse to the
urgency provisions in s. 24A, 24B and 24C of the Act. [423 F-424 CJ

Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi etc. v. Mamanchand Ratilal Agarwal an.d Ors.,
[1980] 3 SCR 224, relied upon.
B
Sarwan Singh & Anr. v. Kasturi Lal. [1977) 2 SCR 421, inapplicable.

Smt. V. L Kashyapv. R.P. (Delhi). 197"1(1) Rent Control Reporter Vol.
9 page 449, S.S. Makhijaniv. V.K; Jotwani. 1977 Rajdhani Law Reporter 207, _
1
and Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985] 1SCR1025, referred -,,
C to.

4. The provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Act would be applicable. When )..
the order was made in this case and the application was filed the building in the
cantonment area did not come within the ambit of the Act in question. When,
however, the revisional order was passed by the Additional District Judge, the
D Act had come into operation and the building in question was within the
purview of the operation of the Act [419 D-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1622 of 1985

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1984 of the Allahabad High ~
E Court in Writ Petition No. 5892 of 1983.

R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant.

Raja Ram Agarwal, D.N. Mukharjee and M.M. Kashtriya for the
Respondents. I·
F
The Judgment of the Court was deFvered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. In the administration of justice
process often makes a mockery of the purp•>Se. This appeal is an example ofthe
same.
G
This appeal by special leave arises 0·1t of the judgment and order of the
High Court of Allahabad dated 26th Sepkmber, 1984. The question involved t
in this appeal is whether the appellant i; entitled to take advantage of the
procedure under section 24-C of the U."P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 af amended from time to time (here-
H inafter called the said Act) in respect of the First floor of House No. 217-218
S.P. JAIN v. K.M. GUPTA [MUKHARJI, J.] 415

Machhli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantonment, of which the appellant is the A
owner and the landlord. The first floor of the said building was in the tenancy of
, respondent No. Ion a monthly rent of Rs. 60. The appellant was atthe relevant
'time posted as Superintendent, Military Farm, Meerut Cantonment. In that
capacity he was alloted Government quarter No. 47 belonging to the Union of
India. On 8th November, 1979 he was given a notice to vacate the Government
quarter by the Deputy Assistant Director intimating that since the appellant B
had his own house at Meerut Cantonment, he should vacate the government
quarter allotted to him by the order dated 8th August, 1979. In view of that the
appellant moved an application under section 24-C of the said Act. It is the case
).-.- of the appellant that he owns no other house except the one involved in the
' present appeal. Section 24-B(l) of the said Act 1which gives the right to move
under section 24-C of the said Act provides as follows:
c
"S.24-B(l) Where a landlord who, being a person in occupation
of any residential public building is required, by, or in pursuance
of, any general or special order made by the Government or
other authority concerned; to vacate such )Juilding, or in default,
to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he owns, in the D
same city, municipality, notified area or town area, a residential
building either in his own name or in the name of any member of
· his family, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such
order, to such landlord, a right to recover · immediately
\ possession of any building le! out by him:
E
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as
conferring a right on a landlord owning, in the same city,
municipality, notifieO ai:ea or town area, two or more dwelling
houses, wh6ther in his own name or in the name of any member
of his family, to recover the possession of more than one
dwelling house and it shall be lawful for such landlord to F
' indicate the dwelling house, possession of which he intends to
recover."

In this appeal we are not concerned with other sub-sections and other
provisos of the said section.
G
The said application was contested by the tenant on number of grounds
including the ground that the accommodation in the possession of the appellant
was sufficient to accommodate his family members. By an order dated 17th
August, 1981, the application of the appellant was allowed by the Delegated
Authority. He held that ihe appellant was in the government service and he was
due to retire on 30th June, 1980 and he had moved an application under the H
416 SUPREME COURT llEPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A provisions of section 24-B for getting his house vacated and getting possession )(
of the same. It was further held by him that iii this house there was ajointlatrine
which created difficulty for the appellant. Therefore the appellant had prayed
t~at the possession of the first floor of the house in dispute should be delivered·
to him at an early date. On this, notice having been given to the respondent, he
stated in his counter that the application was not maintainable and had further
B contended that the present proceedings und :r section 24-C of the Act could not
'be taken, according to him, because the appellant did not need any residential
accommodation whereas the tenant-objector and respondent in this case was a.
poor man and had no other house.

It was contended before the Delegated Authority that the applicant- ---\
c landlord had two residential houses-one in which the appellant-landlord was
living and the other in which the respondent/ tenant-objector was living. It was
the submission of the respondent-tenant that tile appellant-landlord was in
possession of residential accommodation and as such he had no right to get
another residential accommodation vacated from the tenant. The Delegated
Authority observed as follows: ·
D
"It is admitted by both th(: parties that the entire house is one
and in its first floor tenarit is living and the ground floor is in
possession of the landlord. Both the portions of the house are
parts of one house and therefore there is no question of
accepting it as a separate residential unit particularly when the
E tenant-objector has himse'f in his own affidavit and objections
stated that the bath-room and the latrine is on the ground floor
i.e it is situated in the portion of the landlord."

It may be stated that respondent:te nan! had filed an affidavit showing his

F
need. The Delegated Authority who was the Addi. District Magistrate held by _J
his order dated 17th August, 1981 that the application of the appellant should -
be allowed and there.should be an order for eviction. There was an appeal from · ~
the said order before the Additional District Judge. He, in his order, set outthe -
facts referred to hereinbefore. He alw referred to a report dated I Ith
December, 1979 by the Inspector who Hupported the appellant's case. Before
the appellate authority two points were urged namely, that the application was
G not maintainable under section 24-B or under section 24-C of the said Act, and
secondly that the accommodation in the occupation of the landlord was
sufficient for his need. The tenant-respondent contended before the learned
District Judge that as the landlord waH already in occupation of the ground
+
floor of the house in question, he was not entitled to move an application under
the relevant sections. Reliance was placed on the definition of'building'and the
H
interpretation of the 'dwelling house'. It was contended on behalf of the
S.P. JAIN v: K.M. GUPTA [MUKHAILJI, J.] 417

landlord that the building as a whole had to be considered and not in part. The
Delegated Authority was unable to accept the contention urged on behalf of the A
tenant and held that the building meant a single structure and .might be in
occupation of more than one person. It has also been held that the house having
a common courtyard and a common entrance would be a single house and a
landlord should not be forced to live with an outsider or with a person with
whom he had no happy relations. The Appellate Authority held that the B
building in question was just on the head of the portion of the ground floor in
occupation of the landlord. The tenant had to pass daily from the courtyard on
the ground floor in order to attend the call of nature.

It was contended that no eviction of the landlord frol!' the premises in his
occupation had taken place but merely action had been indicated. Therefore, C
recourse to section 24-B and section 24-C of the Act was unwarranted. The
1 learned District Judge was unable to accept those contentions. He accordingly
dismissed the revision application. ·

An application was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution before
the High Court and the High Couri by the impugned judgment and order has D
set aside the order of eviction. It held that the building was situated within the
Cantonment of Meerut. The U.P. Act No. 28 ofl976added Chapter!V-A as to
the question whether this Act would apply to buildings constructed and
situated within the cantonment limit, it was observed that by the notification
issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Cantonments.
(Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, the Central Government had E
extended to all the cantonments in Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the present
· Act in question as in force on the date of notification, and as a result of tlle
issuance of the said notification Chapter IV-A, becanie applicable to the
building in question, according to the High Court. It was, however, urged
before the High Court on behalf of the respondent that Chapter IV-A had been'
. ·~- applied to the Cantonment areas on a subsequent date, i.e. 27th February, 1982, F
j
the Act being not applicable to the accommodation in question in November,
1979 when the application under section 24-B of the Act was filed by the
respondent and as such the same was liable to be dismissed. It was, however,
conceded by respondent that the revision order had been passed by the
Additional District Judge on 27th April, 1983. It was therefore submitted that
the proper course in the circumstances of the instant case would have been to G
send back the case for fresh decision. Reliance had been placed by the appellant
-.+ on the decision in. the case of Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi etc. v. Mamanchand
Ratilal Agarwal and Ors., [1980] 3 SCR 224. However, as the learned judge felt
that on the second point the respondent was entitled to succeed, he did not
decide this point taken in the writ petition by the respondent. The second point
urged before the learned Jiidge was that as the appellant landlord was living in H
418 SUPREME tOURT REPORTS
.
[1987) I S.C.R.

A the ground floor of the said house, sectiorc 24-B was not maintainable. The
learned judge found that the central idea of conferring the power on such a
landlord to recover immediately possession was that he was being evicted from
his government quarter for residence. The learned judge observed th.at the
legislature did not want to leave such a penon at the mercy of the law's delay.
Such a landlord was a class by himself and was entitled to take summary
B proceedings. His case had to be urgently dealt with. But, according to the High
Court, if he had any house in the same building then he would not come within
the purview of section 24-B of the Act. He was, however, not without a remedy.
He can take recourse to section 2l(IA) o.' the said Act. It was noted while
chapter IV-A which incorporated section 24-B and 24-C provided summary
trial, the object of the two provisions namely section 21 on the one hand and
section 24-B and 24-C of the said Act oa the other differ from each other. In this
---\ -
c connection reliance was placed on certllin decisions of this Court. After
referring to certain decisions, it was held that the expression "to recover
immediately" indicated the ground where section 24-B could be applied there,
there was consequential urgency to recoyer the possession of the building.
According to the learned judge, there would be no consequential urgency to
D recover if he was already in possession of a dwelling house or where it could be
made available to him at his choice. The High Court accordingly allowed the
application under article 226 and set aside the orders of the delegated authority
and the appellate authority.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the a.rpellant has come up to this Court.
E
Two questions, therefore, arise in thif appeal namely, firstly, whether the
building with which we are concerned and which is situated in Cantonment of
Meerut would be governed by the provisions of section 24-B and section 24-C
of the Act, and secondly, whether in view or the facts and circumstances found,
have the grounds been made out under section 24-B of the Act for eviction of
.F the respondent from the premises in question in summary manner? It is not J
disputed that the building in question is within the cantonment limits. In the Act I
of 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972), there was an amendment in 1976 and Chapter !V-
A was added by the U.P. Act: No. 28of1976 with effect from 1976. Section24-
A, section 24-B and section 24-C are contained in the said chapter. The said
Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976 did not state whether the said chapter would be
G applicable to buildings constructed and situated within the cantonment limit.
The first question posed before the High Court but not answered by it was
whether in view of the answer given to th' second question, the provisions of
those sections would be applicable to the building in question.

By notification issued in the exercise of section 3 of the Cantonments
H (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act. 1957, the Central Government had
•

S.P. JAIN v. K.M. GUPTA [MUKHARJI. J.] 419

extended to all the Cantonments in Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the Act in A
question, as in force on the date of that notification, in the State of U .P. The
said notification being Notification No. S.R.O. 259 was issued in exercise of the
powers conferred by section 3 of the said Act and in supersession of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence. The said
Notification extended to all the Cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh the
Act (U.P. Act. No. 13 of 1972); as in force on the date of the notification with B
certain modifications with which we are not concerned. It was, therefore,
contended that it could not have by virtue of that notification introduced the
provisions of Chapter IV-A of the said Act to the Cantonment area which
themselves were introduced by Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976. There was
another notification dated 17th February, 1982 being Notification No. S.R.O.
47. The said notification was also issued under section 3 of the aforesaid Act of: C
1957, mentioned hereinbefore and it stated that in supression of the previous
notification, the Government extended to all the cantonments in the State of
Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the Act, with certain modifications .with which
we are not concerned in this case. The 1957 Act authorises the Government to
issue the notification as contemplated therein.~
D
In the instant case, as noted hereinbefore, the appellant had moved an
application under section 24-C of the Act on 14th December, 1979 in respect of
the premises in question on receipt of notice to quit the government premises in
his occupation. The delegated authority. made the order of release on 17th
August, 1981. There was a revision application and it was disposed of by the
Additional" District Judge dismissing the revision on 27th April, 1983. E
Therefore when the order was made in this case and the application was filed
the building in the cantonment area did not come within theambit of the Act in
question. When, however, the revisional order was passed by the Additional
District Judge, the Act had come into operation and the building in question
was within the purview of the operation of the Act.
~ F
In view of the ratio of Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi Etc. v. Mamanchand
Ratilal Agarwal and Ors. (supra) it must be held that the provisions of Chapter
IV A of the Act would be applicable. The amending Act was passed for the
express purpose of saving decrees which had already been passed. Therefore
action under section 24-C of the Act in this case was justified. The High Court
did not decide this point because it was of the opinion that the second point G
which we shall note presently, the High Court was in favour of the respondent.
We are, however, of the opinion that the first point urged on behalf of the
respondent carinot be accepted in view of the position in law as discussed
hereinbefore. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that section 24-B
gave substantive rights to the appellant and section 24-C was the procedure for
enforcing those substantive rights. Therefore, these were not only procedural H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] I S.C.R.

A rights. Therefore, there was no question or retrospective operation to take away
vested right. We are, however, of the opinion that it would be an exercise in
futility if the application is dismissed on this ground, it can be filed again and in
view of the subsequent legislation as noted herein before it was bound to succeed
on this point. In exercise of .our discretionary power under article 136 of the
Constitution it would not be proper to interfere in the facts and circumstances
B of the case on this ground. In the premises in view of the ratio of the decision of
this Court in Jai Singh's case (supra) and reason mentioned hereinbefore this
contention urged on behalf of the respondent must be rejected.

The second question which is the subs!antial question in this appeal is,
whether in view of the fact that respondent No. 3 was in occupation of the
C ground floor of premises No. 217-218 Machhli Bazar, Sadar, Meerut Cantt.,
the first floor of which was in the tenancy of the appellant, the application under
section 24-B of the Act was maintainable? We have noted the provisions of
section 24-B of the Act. It may he ment .oned that section 24-A of the Act
indicated that the provisions of Chapter IV-A or any rule made thereunder shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
D elsewhere in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any
contract (whettier express or implied), cu,;tom or usage to the contrary. The
whole purpose behind section 24-A or sect ion 14-A of the Delhi Rent Control,
1958 which are in pari materia is that when a landlord or a person is in
occupation of a government accommodation and has to leave that
accommodation and yet he has residential building in the area in his own name
E or in the name of any member of his family, then such a person or landlord will
have a right accrued to him to recover immediate possession of the building let
out by him. The rationale behind these provisions or similar provisions is that
when a government servant lets out his house and is without residential
premises then if he is the owner of any residential building either in his name or
in the name of any member of his family then he has a right to ask for immediate
F recovery of the said residential building. It is an urgency provision to help the
government servant to have residential accommodation vacated if he is obliged
to vacate his governmental residential accommodation. The proviso to section
24-B deals with the situation where the landlord has more than one dwelling
house, he will exercise a choice in respect of one. This is not the situation in the
instant case. But it may he noted that sub..section ( 1) of section 24-B uses the
G expression 'if the landlord owns residential builing' and the proviso uses the
expression 'dwelling houses'. ·

Our attention was drawn to the definition of 'building' and 'dwelling
+
house' appearing in some Acts. In the Act in question, however, there is no
definition provided, except that 'building' is defined in clause (i) to section 3
H which is not relevant for our present pucpose. It is therefore necessary to
S.P. JAIN v. K.M. GUPTA [MUKHARJI, J.] 421

determine what kind of a residential building or dwelling house must a landlord A
possess to be entitled to the urgency procedure of section 24--A to 24-C of the
Act to recover immediate possession. In this connection it will be necessary to
examine the type of 'building' in question in this case. Counsel for the appellant
drew our attention to section 3(i) and he further drew our attention to section
12(4), section 16(l)(b), section 21(1), section 21(1-A) of the Act in aid of the
submission that whenever the legislature intended to mean part of the building B
the legislature has said so expressly.

Sarwan Singh & A._nr. v. Kasturi Lal [1977] 2 SCR 421 was dealing with
- )-- the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. Dealing with section
14A of the Delhi Rent Act, this Court observed that section 14A provided that
where the landlord who, being in occupation of residentfal premises allotted to C
him by the Central Government, was required to vacate such residential
accommodation on the ground that he owns residential accommodation within
the Union Territory, there shall accrue to such a landlord notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force right to recover
immediately possession of the premises. In view of the facts in the case involved
before us, where the landlord, the appellant was in possession of a part of the D
building in question which could be considered in certain circumstances to be a
residential unit by itself, the observations made in that decision are not relevant
for the present purpose. In this case we are concerned with the question whether
the type of accommodation which was in the possession of the landlord would
)t.
constitute residential building or dwelling unit in order to disentitle him to seek
recourse to the urgen~y procedure of section 24-A of the Act. E

In Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P.T. Menghani and Anr., [1977] 3
SCR 312 section 14A of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 came ·up for
consideration. This Court held in the said decision that section 2(i) of the Delhi
Act covered any .building or part of the building leased for use, residential,
commercial or other. To attract section 14A of that Act the landlord must be in F
occupation of residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government.
He must be required by order of that Government to vacate the said residential
accommodation. Residential premises are not only plots which are let out for
residential purposes not do all kinds of structures where humans may manage
to dwell are residential. Use or purpose of the letting is no conclusive test.
Whatever is suitable or adaptable for reside~tial use, even by making some G
changes, can be designated residential premises.

We. are of the opinion tha.t law should take pragmatic view of the matter
and respond to the purpose for which it was made and also take cognizance of
the current capabilities of technology and life-style of the community. It is well
settled that the purpose oflaw provides a good guide to the interpretation of the H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A meaning of the Act. We agree with the views of Justice Krishna Iyer in Busching
Schmitz Private Ltd's case (supra) that le1~slative futility is to be ruled out so
long as interpretative possibility permits. R 'sidentiality depends for its sense on
the conteiit and purpose of the statute of the project promoted.

Our attention was drawn to the decision of the learned single judge of the
B Delhi High Court in Smt. V.L. Kashyap 'I. R.P. Puri (Delhi), 1977 (1) Rent
Control Reporter Vol. 9 page 449. The decision was dealing with section 14A of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which is more or less similar to section 24-A
to 24-C of the Act under consideration. The learned judge observed that in
respect of exercise of right under section l 4A of the Delhi Act, an important
proviso had been inserted. It was with the effect that right of eviction under
c section 14A of the Delhi Act was confined only to one dwelling house and the
landlord has no right to recover possession of more than one dwelling house in
exercise of section 14A of the Delhi Act. Reference has to be made to another
decision under the Delhi Rent Control A ct by a learned single judge of the
Delhi High Court in S.S. Makhijani v. V.K. Jotwa_ni, 1977 Rajdhani Law
Reporter 207. There the learned judge referred to another decision and
D expressed concurrence with the said decisicn where it was held that in order to
determine whether two parts of a building consist of one or more dwelling
houses, the tests to be applied were thus (!)consider the building and see
whether it constituted a whole house or a part of the house; (2) if one part was
reasonably needed for convenient and comfortable occupation and enjoyment
of the other part of the building then both the parts of the building constituted
E one dwelling house within the meaning of proviso to section 14A of Delhi Act.
To arrive at this finding, the learned judge observed that the relevant factors to
be taken into consideration were (a)the situation; (b)entrance; (c)the
Municipal Number; (d) the nature of the construction; (e) inter communication
between the two parts; (f) completeness ard independence of each unit; and
(g) other relevant material circumstances. None of these taken singly was
F decisive but the cumulative effect should be considered. We are of the opinion
that the tests indicated above provide workable guide.

Stroud in his"Judicial Dictionary" Vol. 2 at page 858 (4th Edition) noted
that 'dwelling hous<;' is obviously a house with the super-added requirement
that it is dwelt in or the dwellers in which are absent only temporarily, having
G animus revertendi.

In this connection reference may be made to the meaning of 'dwelling +
house' in Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 28 pages 604-605 where dwelling place is
mentioned. See also in this connection 'dv.elling' or 'dwelling house' where it
H was mentioned that the term was not free from ambiguity, multiple meanings
and many definitions have been given. The meaning must suit the purpose and
S.P. JAIN, v. ICM. GUPTA [MUKHARJI •. J.] 423

· the idea_ behind the statute in question in a particular case. For the meaning of A
'dwelling house' it may be instructive to refer to the Wordr and Phrases Legally
Defined Second Edition, Volurrie2 page 127 wherein it has been mentioned,
inter alia, tl>et 'dwelling House' meant a building used or constructed or
adapted to be used wholly or principally for human habitation and 'dwelling
house' included any part of a house where that part was occiipied separately as a
dwelling house. · B

Black's Law Dictionary 1979 Edn. (Fifth Edition) page 454 d~fines
9
'Dwelling as the house or other .structure in which a person or persons live.

Narain Khamman v. Parduman Kumar Jain, [1985] l SCR 1025, was
dealing with section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1953 which is more or C
less similar to the section involved in the present appeal. 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 or dependent child, which were available to him for residential
accommodation or into which he had already moved in, he c0uld not maintain
an application'under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act. D

We have considered the maps at Annexure 4 as well as at p~ge 108 of the
l'aper Book. It appears that there is a staircas~ in the front which leads to the
first floor and one need not go to the ground floor. There are two latrines in
ground floor. There is, however, a common 'passage and in order to come down
to that passage, one has to use another staircase which is a common staircase. In E
this context the question is whether the premises in question could be separately
used. Jn our opinion, the High Court in the facts of this case was not in error in
holding thiit the two parts c0uld be separately enjoyed. .

After 1962 the mother "of the appellant resided in the portion in the
occupation of the .landlord now usOd separately and independently and the F
same is in occupation of the appellant and at that time when the mother of the
appellant was alive the appellant used to Occupy the said portion. In our
opinion the conduct of the parties is relevant in considering whether parts or
portions of a building could be a dwelling house. It may also be mentioned that
after the death of the mother of the appellant theportion was separately let out
and a tenant used to occupy the said portion separately. Here in the instant Case. G .. ·
Shri Mehotra, counsel for the appcJl.~nt, iiow<vcr, stressed •hat in order to be a
dwelling house or residential accommodation, it must be capable of being
separately enjoyed and separately locked up. It is true that without that facility,
the concept of safe and separate dwelling gets hampered. Yet in view of the fact ··
that premises can be enjoyed with common facilities for dwelling purposes H
would constitut.e a separate and independ_ent dwelling houses. It has to be borne
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A in mind that in this case the issue is no: whether the premises is sufficiently
comfortable or whether the portion in question was sufficiently comfortable for
dwelling or residence of the appellant or a party but the question is whether the
house or the portion can be separately considered to be dwelleding. If the
portion in the occupation of the appellant could not be separately dwelled in by
the appellant, it was only then that the extra ordinary provisions of section 24-
B
A, 24-B and 24-C could be resorted to. Otherwise the owner or the landlord is
·entitled to take recourse to other provisions of Rent Act contending that the
premises in question is reasonably required bona fide for the landlord's use but
in the situation like the present the landlord was not entitled to take recourse to
the urgency provisions in section 24-A, 24-B and 24-C of the Act. In our
opinimi to be the dwelling house or reddential accommodation it must be
C capable of being separately enjoyed and whether or not the premises in question
can be so enjoyed does not depend merely because that a portion cannot be
locked up independently or separately.

In that view of the matter, having regard to the nature of the user, we are
D of the opinion that the High Court was right. Therefore while we affirm the
decision of the High Court, in terms of the observations made by this Court in
Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P. T. M:enghani and Anr., (supra), we direct
that the appellant if he so wants or desires can make arrangements for
separation of the two units and to this the respondent-tenant would not be
entitled to take any objection. This, howe·1er, will not prevent the appellant to
seek eviction by other provisions of the Act or by any other appropriate legal
E proceeding if he is otherwise entitled to. ..
In the premises this appeal fails with the aforesaid observations. In the
facts and in the circumstances of this cas''• the parties will pay and bear their
own costs.
F
M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.