KESHAV KUMAR SWARUP versus FLOWMORE PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 18-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN, M.K. MUKHERJEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KESHAV KUMAR SWARUP 
v. 
FLOWMORE PRIVATE LIMITED 
JANUARY 18, 1994 
B 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s.14(1)(e)-Residential Premises--
Leased out to Company-C'lause of leasedeed authorising lessee to use 
premises ''for residence and personal use of Directors and/or their relatives 
C and for the purpose of the Company''-Held, tenant authorised to use premises 
only for residential purpose. 
D 
Interpretation of Documents : Intention of parties-To be ascertained 
from expressions used in document-Reading of entire document-Looking 
into attending circumstances-Need for. 
The appellant-landlord filed an application under s.14(1)(e) of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the respondent from his 
pnmises on the ground of bona fide requirement. The respondent-com-
pany, relying upon clause 5 of the leasedeed·to the effect that the lessee 
E 
would use the premises "for the resi<lence and personal use of Directors 
and/or their relatives and for the purpose of the Company", contended that 
the premises were let out both for residential as also commercial purpose 
and the composite. purpose of the tenancy took the premises out of the 
purview of the residential accommodation. The Rent Controller rejected 
tenant's contentions and allowed the application. The High Court, in the 
F 
revisional application filed by the tenant, accepted its plea of composite 
purpose of tanancy and rejected the application of the landlord. Hence, 
the appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and 
G restoring that of the Rent Controller, this Court 
HELD·: 1.1. On a plain reading of clause 5 of the lease-deed, it is 
• 
-"i 
• 
patently clear that the landlord authorised the tenant to use the premises 
;..-
only for residential purpose and for no other purpose. The words 'for the 
purpose of the Company' ought to be read in conjunction with 'residence' 
H · and· when so read there is no escape from the conclusion that what the 
148 
K.K. SWARUP v. FLOWMORE (P) LTD. [MUKHERJEE, J.) 
149 
parties intended was that the premises were to be used for residence of the A 
Directors, their relatives and also others ·who may have to be accom· 
modated 'for the purpose of the Company'. This was established by the 
other clauses of the agreement as also by the other materials appearing 
on record. From clause 11 of the lease deed it is clear that under the 
agreement only installation of air conditioners and cooking ranges were B 
permitted and there is no mention of any kind of office equipment. Further, 
clause 13, when read in the context of the master and zonal plans clearly 
indicates that the residential user of the premises was only contemplated. 
The High Court erred in law in reversing the decision of the Rent Control· 
ler allowing the eviction. (151-F-H, 152-G] 
2. In interpreting a document the intention of the parties has to be 
ascertained, if possible from the expressions used therein. More often than 
c 
not, this causes no difficulty, but if difficulty is felt owing to inarticulate 
drafting or inadvertence or other causes, the intention may be gathered 
reading the entire document and, if so necessary, from other attending 
circumstances also. If through such a process the intention of the parties D 
can be culled out consistently with the rule of law, the Courts are required 
to take that course. (151-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3487 of 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1988 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.R. (R) No.869 of 1987. 
Harish N. Salve, Ambrish Kumar, H.K. Puri, M.V. Goswami and 
E 
Sharad Puri for t~e Appellant. 
F 
G,L. Sanghi, Mahesh Aggarwal and Anant V. Palli for the Respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
1. MUKHERJEE, J. The appellant-landlord filed an application G 
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 before the 
Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant (Company) from 
the premises in question on the ground of bona fide requirement. After 
obtaining leave to contest the application, the tenant contended, relying 
upon clause 5 of the deed of lease which reads as under :-
H 
150 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
"That the lessee shall use the pr,emises fo1 the residence 
and personal use of Directors &for their relatives and for 
the purpose of the Company." 
that the premises were let out both for residential
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.