1. The need, if any, for referring to the Division Bench of this Court the question of relationship and interplay between Section 14(1)(e) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) and qua which a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Canara Bank v. T.T. Limited (2014) 214 DLT 526 has taken a view, is for adjudication.

2. The question first came up for consideration on 5th July, 2017 when Rent Control Revision Petition Nos. 204 to 208 of 2017 came up for consideration. The said Rent Control Revision Petitions under Section 25B(8) of the Act were filed impugning the common order dated 29th November, 2016 of the Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, Tis Hazari of dismissal of applications filed by the petitioners therein for leave to defend the five petitions for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent Superior Exim Pvt. Ltd. therein with respect to five premises in the tenancy of the five petitioners under the said respondent. It was on that date enquired from the senior counsel for the respondent/landlord as to how the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, by a private limited company, was maintainable. The senior counsel for the respondent/landlord drew attention to Canara Bank (supra) and to Madan Mohan Lal Sri Ram Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Tandon (1981) 2 DRJ 308. My recollection of the view earlier taken being to the contrary, the senior counsel for the respondent therein was requested to study the earlier judgments and to revert.

3. In the interregnum, several other Rent Control Revision Petitions against orders, mostly of eviction, in petitions for eviction filed by landlords, who in contradistinction to a natural person, were a juristic person and / or of dismissal of their petitions for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act came up before this Court and were also posted for hearing along with the petitions aforesaid in which the question had first been raised.

4. During the hearing on 11th August, 2017, it was enquired from the counsels for the landlords that if it were to be held that besides Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, Section 22 can also be invoked by a landlord, who as distinct from a natural person is a juristic person, and the legislature having provided a summary procedure under Section 25B of the Act only with respect to petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) and not with respect to petition for eviction under Section 22 of the Act, whether such a landlord can in its own discretion choose a ground of eviction, procedure wherein is to the detriment of the tenant.

5. Since then, several other petitions entailing the same question came up before this Court and all of which were also tagged.

6. All the counsels who choose to be heard have been heard.

7. Before proceeding further, it is deemed appropriate to, for convenience, reproduce herein Section 14(1)(e), Section 14(6), Section 19 and Section 22 of the Act, to all of which a reference was made during the hearing. The same are as under:

14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: —

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) xxx xxx xxx

(e) that the premises let for residential purposes 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 that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;

Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes