1998 Supreme(SC) 395

1998(3) Supreme 473
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M/s. Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Rajendra K. Tandon -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1785 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22226 of 1997)
Decided on 26-3-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Ms. Neelam Rathore, Maninder Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent : H.N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, Mukul Rohtagi, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocates.

Very Important Point
Under Section 14C of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 possession can be recovered by the landlord only for real, genuine and bonafide need and not for “feigned” need even though the words “bona fide need” are not there in this Section as they are in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

Headnote:(i) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14C and 14(1)(e)-Grounds of eviction under them-Comparison-Absence of words “bonafide require­ment” in Section 14C whether makes any difference? (No).

       Held : This Section intends to provide a house to a landlord who becomes homeless on retirement. It is for this reason that it is further provided in sub-section (3) of Section 14C that if the landlord has let out more than one premises, he shall indicate his choice for the premises which he intends to occupy. If this is done by him and the choice is indicated for a particular premises, it will not be open to the tenant either to say that the landlord owns another house or to contend that the landlord should have sought eviction of the tenant occupying the other house particularly as the indication of “choice” will be in consonance with the legislative intent reflected in Section 14C to provide immediately a house to a retired employee without the issue relating to the “other house” being permitted to be raised. This principle is directly related to a landlord who becomes or is likely to become homeless on retirement but not to landlords who are already in occupation of a house, owned by them, and seek eviction of the tenant from their other house, or, where the landlord is in occupation of a part of his own house and seeks eviction of the tenant from the other part. In such a case, the tenant may raise objections with res­pect to the landlord’s requirement, particularly as the requirement, on re­tirement or likely retirement, cannot possibly, not in all cases, become urgent over­night. To repeat, the purpose is to provide a home to a homeless so that he may lead a peaceful and quiet life after retirement. (Para 15)

       Held also : In Section 14(1)(e) as also under Section 14C, it is the require­ment of the landlord which constitutes the basis for tenant’s evic­tion. If the requirement has to be genuine and bona fide, under Sec­tion 14(1)(e), can it be said that because the words “bona fide” have not been used in Section 14C, the requirement of the landlord may not be bona fide or genuine. This meaning, obviously, cannot be given to Section 14C. No landlord, not even a landlord under Section 14C, can be permitted to come to Court for eviction of the tenant for his requirement which is not real, genuine or bona fide. The tenant cannot be evicted on a false plea of requirement or “feigned requirement”. The omission of the words “bona fide”, therefore, does not make much of a difference. (Para 20)

       (ii) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14C-Right of land­lord to immediate possession to retired or would be retiring employee of Central Government or Delhi Administration-Defence of Tenant in seeking leave to defend u/s. 25B (4), (5) & (6)-What pleas can be taken by tenant? (Indica­ted)-Effect-Case law discussed.

       Held : Concentrating on Section 14C alone and not travelling to other cognate Sections, namely, 14A, 14B and 14D, a tenant while seeking permission of the Controller to defend the eviction proceedings, under Section 25B of the Act, can legitimately raise the plea, for example, that the landlord has either not retired or was not likely to retire from service within one year of the initiation of proceedings or that the landlord, after retirement, has taken up employment elsewhere or has been given any other lucrative assignment including the facility of a “Quarter” or an assignment com­mensurate with his earlier status and, therefore, may say that the landlord does not require the prem­ises for his own occupation. The tenant may also indicate that the landlord, in order to augment his income after retirement, wanted only to let out the premises again on higher rent and to save sufficient portion of rental earnings, he himself had chosen or might choose to live in a tenanted accommodation on cheaper rent. These pleas (may be, many more such pleas, as human ingenuity knows no bounds) would defi­nitely touch the “bona fides” of the landlord and, therefore, cannot be denied to a tenant on the ground that the landlord, having retired from service or likely to retire, has to be presumed to require the accommodation for his own occupation. (Para 26)

       Held thus : Integrating these two factors together, namely, the right of the landlord to recover immediate possession and the right available to a tenant to raise pleas in defence to indicate that the premises, in spite of retirement or likely retirement of the landlord, are not required by him, what emerges out is that while the landlord has to establish his “requirement”, which means “real” and not “feigned”, the tenant can show that it is not so. (Para 27)

       (iii) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14C-Summary of legal position for ground of eviction u/s. 14C.

       Held : In view of the statutory provisions discussed above, specially in view of the fact that while introducing Section 14A to 14D in the Act, no amendment was made in Section 25B, we may summarise the legal position relating to eviction proceedings initiated under Section 14C, as under:

        (i) Proceedings under Section 14C can be initiated by a landlord who was in the service of the Central Government or Delhi Administra­tion and has retired from service or is likely to retire within one year of the initiation of proceedings, but the retirement or likely retirement of the landlord does not give rise to a presumption that the premises are bona fide required by him. The landlord has also to plead and show that after retirement or likely retirement, no fresh assignment has been taken up or is likely to be taken up by him with the facility of a residential “Quarter”.

        (ii) Possession can be recovered by the landlord only for real, genuine and bona fide need and not for “feigned” need.

        (iii) Proceedings under Section 14C can be contested only when leave to contest is granted by the Rent Controller; whether leave would be granted or refused would depend upon the nature of pleas raised or circumstances shown by the tenant in his affidavit filed before the Rent Controller.

        (iv) Section 25B does not place any restriction on the right of the tenant to raise pleas in defence within the parameters of Section 14C, namely, that he can plead and prove that notwithstanding the retirement or likely retirement of the landlord, the premises are not required by him for his own residence. No plea regarding the size of the landlord’s family or the tenant’s own family, whether it was likely to increase with son’s marriage or decrease with daughter’s marriage, can be raised by the tenant nor can be raise any plea as to the extent of accommodation or floor area or comparative hardship or partial eviction etc. as these are considerations which are not rele­vant under Section 14C. If, however, the landlord is already in occu­pation of his own house, part of which is in occupation of a tenant (as in the instant case) or where whole of the house, owned by the landlord, is in his personal occupation and he makes an application for eviction of a tenant occupying another house, the need of the landlord, with reference to his family strength and the extent of accommodation, at his disposal, will have to be examined vis-a-vis his requirement.

        (v) Expeditious enquiry need be held or else the landlord, if he has already retired from service will be literally on the “street” during the pendency of the proceedings which, undoubtedly, take long to conclude particularly as one party, namely, the tenant, is inher­ently interested in delayed disposal. If the tenant was allowed to contest Section 14C application also with that attitude, giving him the liberty to place all possible obstacles to retard the pace of the proceedings, legislative intent of providing immediate possession of the house to a retired, or likely to retire landlord, would be frus­trated. (Para 37)

       (iv) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14C r/w 25B- Application of landlord for eviction of tenant under-Tenant moving affidavit for leave to defend-Leave refused by Trial Court-Confirmed by High Court-Whether correct? (Yes).

       Held : The facts established in this case indicate that the respondent was a Central Government employee. He was last posted at Delhi as Dy. Chief Engineer, Northern Railway and retired from service on 23rd July, 1987. He filed the application under Section 14C within time. He indicated his choice for the premises in question comprising of the ground floor, first and second floors. The ground floor is in occupa­tion of the appellant while the first and second floors are in occupa­tion of the respondent. The respondent has sought eviction of the appellant from the ground floor on the ground that the entire premises are required by him, particularly as the accommodation at his disposal on the first and second floors is insufficient. It is pleaded that while he requires three bed rooms separately for his son, daughter and for himself and his wife, another room is required for his office where he proposes to carry on consultancy work after having retired as Deputy Chief Engineer from the Northern Railway. He also requires another room for his guests, specially his three sisters who, though married, quite often visit the respondent, who is their only brother and after the death of their parents, their brother, namely the respondent is the only nearest relation whom they visit on all possible occasions. For these reasons, the entire accommodation on the ground floor is needed by the respondent by way of additional accommodation. The respondent also owns another house in Delhi. He has explained and established his need for this particular premises for which he has also indicated his “choice”. Apparently, the need appears to be a need falling under Section 14(1)(e), but the fact remains that the need for additional accommodation of one room or the ground floor, which would also include the facility of car-parking, which the re­spondent, otherwise, had been parking on the road, has arisen on his retirement. (Para 39)

       We have also examined the facts set out by the appellant in his affidavit filed before the Rent Controller for leave to defend the present proceedings. The pleas, in our opinion, do not disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises in question par­ticularly when the respondent has clearly set out in his petition that although he owned one more house, he wanted this particular premises for his own need. The choice, and, sufficient reasons in support thereof, having thus been indicated by the respondent, the plea of the appellant about alternative accommodation being available to the landlord cannot be sustained. (Para 40)

       We have, ourselves, examined the facts here to avoid the agony of a protracted litigation by remanding the case to the Rent Controller, particularly as we see no justification to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court by which the appellant has been required to hand-over vacant possession to the res­pondent. We, however, provide that before possession is actually delivered to the respondent, he shall file an affidavit before the Rent Controller stating, in the form of an undertaking, that no part of the premises in question com­prising of ground floor, first floor and the second floor shall be let out by him for one year from the date of taking over possession. In case of breach of that undertaking, the tenant would become entitled to regain the possession of the premises on an application made by him before the Rent Controller. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. (Para 41)