Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 250
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.Santosh Hegde : Ruma Pal : S.P.Bharucha
Nathi Devi
Versus
Radha Devi Gupta
Case No. : 5027 of 1999
Date of Decision : 2/1/00
Advocates Appeared: Bhagat Vinoo : Sachdeva Sanjeev
The case addresses whether the term "let out" in Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, refers to the creation of a tenancy or an existing tenancy, determining if a transferee landlord (widow) can recover immediate possession of the premises.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14-D - Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow - Interpretation of the words "let out" - Whether the phrase refers to the creation of a fresh tenancy or an existing tenancy - If the former, the section can be resorted to only by the creator of the tenancy; if the latter, a transferee landlord is also entitled to invoke the provision. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed regarding the interpretation of Section 14-D of the Rent Control Act, which allows a widow landlord to recover immediate possession of premises for her own residence. The dispute centers on whether the term "let out" applies only to the original creator of the tenancy or includes a transferee landlord.
Findings of Court:
The court noted a conflict in the views taken by two previous Benches of three judges each. One view suggests that "let out" refers only to the creation of a tenancy, while another interprets the words to mean that even a transferee landlord can invoke the provision.
Issues: Whether the words "let out" in Section 14-D(1) of the Act refer to the creation of a fresh tenancy or an existing tenancy, and consequently, whether a transferee landlord is entitled to invoke the provision.
Ratio Decidendi: Since there is a conflict between two Benches of three judges each on the interpretation of the phrase "let out" in the context of Section 14-D, the matter must be resolved by a larger Bench.
Result: Appeal to be heard by a Bench of five judges.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
rent control
-
recovery of possession
- widow's right
-
recovery of possession
-
rent control
-
practice and procedure
- reference to larger bench
(1) WE are concerned with the interpretation of Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Sub-section (1) thereof reads as follows:
"14-D. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow. (1) Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises."
(2) SPECIFICALLY the issue is in relation to the meaning of the words "let out". Do they mean the creation of a fresh tenancy or do they refer to an existing tenancy? If the former, the section can be resorted to only by the creator of the tenancy (widow or her late husband). If it is the latter, even a transferee (widow) is entitled to invoke it. We find that there is some conflict in the views taken by two Benches of three learned Judges each. An observation in the judgment in Surjit Singh Kaira v. Union of India suggests that the words "let out" refer only to the creation of a tenancy. On the other hand, the judgment in Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak interprets the words "let out" in the context of Section 14-D of the Act to mean that even a transferee landlord can invoke the provision. It is, in these circumstances, necessary that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges. It shall be so placed after obtaining the directions of the Honble the Chief Justice of India in this regard.
