IMPORTANT POINT
The expression the premises let for residential purpose under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 should be construed liberally and not literally. So long as principal and dominant purpose of letting is residential, its mixed use or incidental use of a part for any other purpose would not change the letting purpose.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(e) r/w 25B-Eviction petition for bona fide need for residential purpose-Decreed by Rent Controller-Upheld by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Controversy about letting purpose-Interpretation of expression "the premises let for residential purpose"-It should be liberal and not technical-Principal and dominant purpose is to be seen-Whether it is residential? (Yes)-Response of explanation to Section 14(1)(e)-Appeal dismissed-Case law discussed-(Delhi Development Act, 1957-Sections 14 and 29-Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-Section 347).
       Held : In our opinion the expression the premises let for residential purposes should be construed liberally and not technically or narrowly; meaning thereby, where the premises are solely let for residential purposes they are undoubtedly covered by Section 14(1)(e) but even when the premises are let out for composite or mixed purposes if the predominant or main purpose of letting is for residential purposes, the same would be included within the expression the premises let for residential purposes . An incidental, a secondary or unauthorized user of the premises for purposes other than residence would not take the premises out of the meaning of the expression the premises let for residential purposes . Premises are capable of being classified into residential and non-residential depending on the purpose of letting. This is the broad classification. Question of construction and determining the purpose of letting may pose difficulty when the premises are let for mixed, composite or dual purposes, i.e., where the entire premises are allowed to be used for an overlapping purpose or the premises forming subject-matter of one tenancy are allowed to be used for purposes more than one. In such a case it cannot be said that the premises would cease to be of either category, i.e., they would be neither residential nor non-residential. Rather it would be necessary to find out what is the "main and dominant purpose of letting as distinguished from "subsidiary, ancillary or incidental purpose". The theory of determining the purpose of letting by reference to finding out the main and dominant purpose of letting has ample judicial authority to derive support from. (Paras 9 and 10)
       After reviewing case law Held : In our opinion, for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, so long as the principal and dominant purpose of letting is residential merely because a mixed user of the premises or user of a part or incidental or ancillary user of the premises is permitted for activities other than residential, the purpose of letting the premises would not cease to be residential and the premises would continue to be governed by Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (Para 16)
       Held further : Clause 7 of the Deed prohibits user of the premises for business purposes. Clause 12 obliges the occupants to comply with the laws governing the locality and as applicable to the local authorities. Clause 16 restrains use for any illegal purpose, i.e., a purpose not permitted by law. These clauses obviously attract applicability of Sections 14 and 29 of the DDA Act as also Section 347 of the DMC Act. The upshot of the above discussion is that the primary and dominant purpose of letting the suit premises is residential. Commercial activity therein is not permitted. Incidental user for office purpose is permitted subject to the condition of such user being permissible under the municipal laws which it is not. In any case such user being incidental or ancillary, the same would not detract from the primary or dominant purpose of letting. The suit premises have been rightly held by the High Court to be the premises let for residential purposes within the meaning of Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act. (Paras 19 and 20)
       Held also : All that the explanation say is that the tenant cannot by his unilateral act of impermissible user, alter the purpose of letting. This explanation has nothing to do with determining the main, principal or dominant purpose of letting - the theory which in our opinion applies to interpreting the expression the premises let for residential purposes in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. (Para 22)
       Held finally : The appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellants are allowed four months time from today for vacating the suit premises subject to filing the usual undertaking within a period of three weeks from today. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Proceedings for eviction of the appellants-tenants, were initiated by the respondent-landlord on the ground available under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act , for short). The High Court has, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, passed an order for recovery of possession of the tenancy premises. The tenants are in appeal by special leave.

2. The tenancy premises are situated at B-44, Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi. Out of the building standing over 1000 sq. yards plot the appellants are in occupation of the front portion of the ground-floor since 1971. Premises comprise of four bed-rooms, 3 bathrooms, 1 barsati, 1 garage and the servant quarters along with one bathroom for servants. At this stage, it is no more in controversy that the respondent is owner-cum-landlord of the premises and the appellants are the tenants. The terms of tenancy are incorporated in a document dated 13th September, 1971 called Licence Deed. The Rent Controller and the High Court have both recorded findings of fact that the suit premises are required bona fide by the respondent-landlord for occupation as a residence for himself and the members of his family and for satisfying such requirement the respondent does not possess any other suitable accommodation. The controversy centers around determination of the purpose for which the premises have been let, and, depending on the answer, whether the applicability of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is attracted. In the opinion of the Rent Controller - it is not; in the opinion of the High Court - it is.

3. Clauses 6, 7, 12 and 16 of the Licence Deed, which were referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing, are extracted and reproduced hereunder-

"6. The Licensees shall use the said premises for the residence of their Directors, partners and officers. The Licensees will, however, be free to use the said premises in part or in full also for office purpose provided the rules of the local authorities so permit and in such an event the Licensees shall pay to the owners any increase in local taxes, etc. occasioned by such change of use of the said premises from residential to office.

7. The Licensees shall not permit the said premises or any part thereof being used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the owners and in default thereof the Licence shall be liable for cancellation. The Licensees shall not transfer possession of the premises or part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the premises with any other person or assign, transfer, change or otherwise alienate their interest in the premises.

12. The Licensees shall comply at all times with all the rules and regulations of the local authorities whatsoever in relation to the said premises.

16. The Licensees agree and understand that the said premises shall not be used for any illegal or immoral purpose, for gambling or for sale of alcoholic beverages and the owners shall have full right to cancel the Licence by giving one month s notice in case the said premises are used for any of these purposes and to claim in full the balance of the Licence-fees for the unexpired part of the Licence period and in addition to claim damages/for less of good reputation of the premises and the owners and also expenses sustained in the removal of the Licensees establishment from the said premises."

4. A few other relevant undisputed facts may also be noticed. The master plan and the zonal plan of the locality where the suit premises are situated have earmarked the area as residential. No activity other than residential is permissible thereat. This is so by virtue of the provisions contained in Delhi Development Act, 1957 and Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the relevant provisions whereof will be referred to where needed. It appears that on 18.3.1982, a junior engineer of Delhi De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1206

Cases Referred (6)