Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 821

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Gandhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.3793 of 2016 With C.A. No. 8972-8973 of 2017, C.A.No. 6063 of 2019(arising out of SLP(C) No. 19965 of 2017), C.A.No. 6064 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20414 of 2017), C.A.Nos. 6066-6072 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20735-20741 of 2017), C.A.No. 6073 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 22383 of 2017), C.A. No. 16916 of 2017 and C.A.No. 6075 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28455 of 2017)
Decided on : 05-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Manju Jetley, Nitin Gupta, Nikunj Dayal, Shiv Kumar Suri, Shikhil Suri, Shilpa Saini, Vinishma Kaul, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Rajinder Mathur, Uday Gupta, Shivani Lal, Hiren Dasan, Sarla Chandra, M.K. Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Uday Gupta, Shivani Lal, Hiren Dasan, Mohan Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Jai Sahai Endlaw, Varun Mathur, Chanan Parwani, D. K. Srivastav, Bhuvan Mishra, Shivansh Soni, Rajesh Goyal, Rachna Gupta, S.C. Singhal, Ekansh Bansal, M.S. Vidyottma, Parmanand Gaur, Arun K. Sinha, Gagan Gupta, Siddharth Mittal, Parbhat Kumar, S.R. Padhy, V. K. Monga, Mohit Chaudhary, Puja Sharma, Anup Kumar Mishra, Kunal Sachdeva, Garima Sharma, S. Gupta, Balwinder Singh Suri, Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Judgment of Satyawati Sharma cannot be held to be per Incuriam.
(2) When a Court delivers judgment ignoring binding precedent of a larger Bench, judgment so delivered is held to be per Incuriam and has no precedential value.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 14(10(e) and 25-B(8) – Eviction – Bonafide need of landlord – Dismissal of application seeking leave to defend – Judgment of Satyawati Sharma cannot be held to be per Incuriam – There is nothing in the judgment which needs to be revisited on aspect of hardship on tenants – It is for Legislature to take stock of situation and if it so decides it can make necessary changes in procedure for considering application under Section 14(1)(e) with regard to eviction of commercial tenants on the ground of bonafide need of land ord – Rejection of leave for a particular case is matter to be examined in each case and no general observation can be made in this regard – Legislature may consider advisability of making bonafide requirement of landlord a ground of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well – Judgment of Satyawati Sharma was not a case of reading down of Section 14(1)(e) rather it was a case where portion of Section 14(1)(e) was struck down as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Constitution – No good ground to refer judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma for reconsideration by a larger Bench. (Paras 32, 45, 46, 53, 54 and 55)
       (B) Judicial Discipline – Rule of Stare Decisis – When a Court delivers judgment ignoring binding precedent of a larger Bench, judgment so delivered is held to be per Incuriam and has no precedential value. (Para 24)
       Facts of the case:
       Appellants are tenants occupying non-residential buildings for whose eviction petitions have been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide need of landlord. Appellants at the very outset challenge maintainability of eviction petitions filed by landlord under 14(1)(e) on the ground of bonafide need. Present appeals, except one where leave to defend was granted, have been filed against judgment of Delhi High Court dismissing Rent Control Revisions filed by appellants in which order passed by Rent Controller rejecting application filed by appellants-tenants seeking leave to defend in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been challenged.
       Findings of Court:
       Law has been made by Parliament in enacting Act, 1995 which accepts suggestion of Constitution
       Bench in Gian Devi Anand and hence what has been held by Satyawati Sharma was felt both by this Court and Legislature. We, thus, do not find any good ground to refer the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma for reconsideration by a larger Bench.
       Result : Appeals listed for consideration on merits.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals, except one where leave to defend was granted, have been filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dismissing the Rent Control Revisions filed by the appellants in which the order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application filed by the appellants-tenants seeking leave to defend in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been challenged.

3. The appellants are tenants occupying non residential buildings for whose eviction petitions have been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide need of landlord. The appellants at the very outset challenge the maintainability of eviction petitions filed by the landlord under 14(1)(e) on the ground of bonafide need. The facts are being taken from C.A.No.3793 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi) for considering the issues which have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant at the very beginning of the submission.

C.A.No.3793 of 2016 (Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi)

4. The appellant is a tenant of a shop bearing No.J- 3/188-B, Nehru Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi 110027. The respondent-landlord of the premises filed an Eviction Petition on 03.01.2011 to obtain possession of the shop on the ground that son of the landlord was without any job and the premises in question are bonafide required by his son to start business of sale of readymade garments and accessories. It was further pleaded in the application that the landlord has planned to make a passage of around six feet wide throughout the length of the property, from the front side, to have access to the stairs case in the rear side of the property. The Rent Controller after receipt of the said application issued notice to the appellant-tenant. On 25.01.2011, the appellant filed an application seeking leave to defend along with a detailed affidavit in support thereof. The landlord filed a reply to the application alongwith counter-affidavit. The Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 05.05.2015 rejected the application seeking leave to defend filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 05.05.2015 revision petition was filed by the appellant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order or Additional Rent Controller. The High Court vide its judgment dated 14.03.2016 dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

5. In C.A.No.3793 of 2016 various grounds have been raised in support of the appeal. Other appeals included in this group also raise several grounds on the merits questioning the refusal to grant leave to defend by the Rent Controller. However, on the opening of the submissions, learned counsel for the appellants have confined their submissions on the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287. Questioning the correctness of judgment of Satyawati Sharma various grounds have been canvassed before us. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said judgment needs to be referred to a larger Bench to examine its correctness. It is the submission of the appellant that the Eviction Petitions have been filed under 14(1)(e) for eviction from non-residential premises on the projected bonafide need of landlord only on the basis of judgment of Satyawati Sharma, which had, in fact, re written the provision of 14(1)(e). It is submitted that as per provision of 14(1)(e) as contained in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the landlord was precluded from filing application for eviction on the ground of bonafide need regarding non-residential premises. It is submitted that application under 14(1)(e) was contemplated by the Act only with regard to premises let for residential purposes.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord has countered the submission of the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 821

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Judgment of Satyawati Sharma cannot be held to be per Incuriam.(2) When a Court delivers judgment ignoring binding precedent of a larger Bench, judgment so delivered is held to be per Incuriam and has no precedential value.

Cases Referred (16)

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Judgment of Satyawati Sharma cannot be held to be per Incuriam.
(2) When a Court delivers judgment ignoring binding precedent of a larger Bench, judgment so delivered is held to be per Incuriam and has no precedential value.