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

2000 Supreme(SC) 250

N.S.HEGDE, RUMA PAL, S.P.BHARUCHA
Nathi Devi – Appellant
Versus
Radha Devi Gupta – Respondent


(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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top