A Private Limited Company can file an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the residence of its Chairman and Directors.

1. Present revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’), seeking to set aside judgment and order dated 17th January, 2000 whereby petitioners-tenants leave to defend application was dismissed by Additional Rent Controller on the ground that it did not disclose any triable issue and an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act in favour of respondent-landlord.

2. Mr. Suresh C. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners, submitted that a company cannot file an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act. He submitted that a company can only file an eviction petition under Section 22 of DRC Act for recovery of possession of premises. According to him, present eviction petition was not maintainable as respondent-company had no locus standi or authority to file the same. Mr. Gupta, further submitted that a bare reading of Section 14(1)(e) makes it clear that the said provision for eviction is available only to a natural person.

3. Section 14(1)(e) and Section 22 of DRC Act are reproduced hereinbelow for read reference:

“14. Protection of tenant against eviction. -

xxx xxx xxx

(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof , or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

22. Special provision for recovery of possession in certain cases. – Where the landlord in respect of any premises is any company or other body corporate or any local authority or any public institution and the premises are required for the use of employees of such landlord or in the case of a public institution, for the furtherance activities, then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in his behalf by such landlord, place the landlord in vacant possession of such premises by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation thereof, if the Controller is satisfied -

.(a) that the tenant to whom such premises were let for use as a residence at a time when he was in the service or employment of the landlord, has ceased to be in such service or employment; or

.(b) that the tenant has acted in contravention of the terms, express or implied, under which he was authorised to occupy such premises; or

(c ) that any other person is in unauthorised occupation of such premises; or

(d) that the premises are required bona fide by the public institution for the furtherance of its activities.

4. Mr. Gupta, also referred to a judgment in case of M/s Madan Mohan Lal, Sri Ram Pvt. Ltd.

v. P. Tandon reported in 1981 (2) RCR 516 wherein according to him it has been held that provisions of Section 14(1)(e) are not applicable/available to a company, when the premises are required for its employees. Mr. Gupta also referred to a judgment in case of K.M. Basheer v. Loha Chackola 2003 reported in Company Cases 127 (Kerala) wherein it has been held: “…………. Here Chakolas Habitat Pvt. Ltd. the company wants to have an office and since the respondent landlord is a director of the company it cannot be stated that it is his need or requirement of “own” occupation. In the eviction petition, the need of the company in which the landlord is the director is projected as his own need. We are unable to agree with the above. Unlike a partnership firm, a company is a different entity and need of the company in which landlord is a director cannot be said to be the need of the landlord for his “own” occupation and therefore the landlord cannot file a petition under Section 11(3) for the occupation of the building owned personally by him for the functioning o