SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Sunil Kumar Jain - Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, Delhi High Court - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12544 of 2019 & CM No. 51249 of 2019 (for interim directions)
Decided On : 19-02-2021




The High Court reaffirmed that summary eviction procedures apply to both residential and commercial premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, based on legislative intent and precedent case law.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e), 25B - Petition filed against the rejection of a representation regarding the applicability of summary eviction procedures to commercial premises - The Court reaffirmed that Section 25B mandates a summary procedure for both residential and commercial evictions under Section 14(1)(e) based on the judgment in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287. (Paras 1, 9, 19)

(B) Jurisdiction - High Court exercising Article 227 does not possess authority to issue directives contrary to the law enacted by the legislature. (Paras 9, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, tenants of commercial shops, challenged the use of summary eviction procedures under the Act, citing a misinterpretation of legislative intent and subsequent Supreme Court rulings as authoritative change, which they argued unfairly impacted their eviction rights. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the statutory provisions dictate the treatment of eviction petitions and any Practice Direction contrary to these would be unlawful. (Paras 9, 19)

Issues: The core issues pertained to whether the summary procedure under Section 25B of the Act applies to commercial premises, and if the petitioners' representation had been wrongfully denied without proper hearings. (Paras 2, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The application of summary eviction procedures to commercial premises under Section 14(1)(e) remains lawful according to established precedents, and the High Court cannot deviate from legislative frameworks in the issuance of Practice Directions. (Paras 9, 19)

Result: The petition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the petition and representation. (Para 1)
2. arguments against summary eviction for commercial premises. (Para 2)
3. procedural history of the petition. (Para 3)
4. discussion on article 227 and rent control act provisions. (Para 4)
5. summary procedure requirements under section 25b. (Para 5)
6. satyawati sharma's impact on eviction grounds. (Para 8)
7. legislative mandate regarding eviction procedures. (Para 9)
8. supreme court's position on reconsideration of satyawati sharma. (Para 15)
9. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The five petitioners, have filed this petition impugning the communication dated 1st October, 2019 of this Court, rejecting the representation dated 2nd May, 2018 made by the petitioners on the Administrative side of this Court. It is the case of the petitioners, that (i) they are tenants in different shops in the city of Delhi; (ii) different Rent Control legislations, viz. New Delhi House Rent Control Order 1939, Delhi Rent Control Ordinance 1944, Delhi and Ajmer-Marwara Rent Control Act 1947, Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 and Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) have been applicable to Delhi from time to time; (iii) Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act afforded to the landlords a right to evict the tenant on the ground of requirement of the premises for the residence of himself/herself and their dependant family members; (iv) vide amendment of the year 1976 to the Act, Section 25B was incorporated in the Act, prescribing summary procedure for decision of the petitions for eviction on the ground under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act; (v) in the debate in the Parliament preceding the aforesaid amendment of the year 1976, the then Minister of State in the Ministry of Works and Housing allayed the apprehension that commercial tenants would also be evicted through summary procedure, by stating that the said procedure was confined to residential premises and did not apply to commercial premises; (vi) challenge made in CWP No.1092-1093/1999, by one Satyawati Sharma, before this Court, to the vires of Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act, was negatived vide judgment dated 27th August, 2002; (vii) however the Supreme Court, in appeal preferred by Satyawati Sharma, vide judgment Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 287, made the eviction of tenants under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act applicable qua commercial premises also; (viii) pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers in Delhi, vis-a-vis petitions filed by landlords under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act qua premises let out for commercial purposes, started following the summary procedure under Section 25B of the Act, for the said petitions also, failing to appreciate that Section 25B of the Act had no applicability to the premises let out for commercial purposes; (ix) aggrieved by the application of summary procedure to petitions for eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act with respect to commercial premises, the petitioners preferred CM(M) No.385/2018 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, before this Court, seeking issuance of an order or direction in the nature of a Practice Direction to the Rent Controllers/Additional Rent Controllers in Delhi regarding nonapplicability of Section 25B of the Act to eviction petitions filed qua premises let out for commercial purposes/non-residential use, under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act; (x) the aforesaid CM(M) 385/2018 was disposed of by a Single Judge of this court vide order dated 6th April, 2018 as under:

"After some hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not press the petition for consideration on the judicial side and instead reserves the right to make an appropriate petition to the High Court on the administrative side for exercise of its jurisdiction in terms of Article 227(2)(b) of the Constitution of India for cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top