S.N. KAPOOR (DEAD) BY HIS LRS. versus BASANT LAL KHATRI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 05-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
S.N. KAPOOR (DEAD) BY HIS LRS. 
v. 
BASANT LAL KHATRI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Delhi Rent Colltrol Act 1958: 
Section 14( I)( e>-Eviction petition-Bona.fide requirement-Prindples-
Held: The choice of proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely.fanciful-
The requirement must not only be bona.fide but also genuine-It should not be 
a pretext only to get rid of the tenant. 
Section 14MD-Eviction petition-Im1nediate possession o,f pre1nises-
Recovery o.f-Laiullady 's right-Held : The landlady must be a widow, the 
premises 1nust be required.for her own need and that the need nutst be bona.fide 
and not a .feigned one. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Eviction petition-Conversion of-From one under S.14(J)(e) lo one 
E 
under S.14-D-Held: The common determining .factor under both cases being 
the "Bona fides" there is no it11pedi111ent for such conversion or alteration-
High Court erred iii refusing such conversion. 
The appellant-landlord, the original owner of the suit premises, filed 
F 
a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of bona .fide 
requirement of the suit premises for the appellant under Section 14(l)(e) of 
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The trial court held that the requirement 
of the appellant was not bona.fide. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a revision before the High Court and 
during the pendency of the revision the appellant expired. Thereafter, the 
appellant's widow filed an application for conversion of the eviction peti· 
tion to one under Section 14-D of the Act. The High Court rejected the 
application. Subsequently, the revision was also dismissed on merits. Hence 
this appeal. 
33 
G 
H 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the app~al, the Court 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. So far as Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 
1958 is concerned, the bona .fide nature of the requirement need be estab· 
lished for getting an order of eviction and even in the ab~nce of a specific 
stipulation in this regard this Court, in order to make the enabling power 
under Section 14-D of the Act to be more reasonable, read into it also the 
need to substantiate that the request of the widow to recover p0ssession of 
the premises for her own residence should be bona .fide. The common 
determining factor being the "Bona .fides" in both cases, and the landlady 
seeks an adjudication on the basis of materials already on record there 
should be no impediment for the Authorities/Courts functioning: even 
under the Act to permit such conversion or alteration and consider the 
claims made under the altered provision of law. The High Court erred in 
refusing to allow the application for modification of the claim made" under 
Section 14(1)(e) into one under Section 14-D, for being considered on its 
D 
merits. (38-D-E·F·G] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Surjit Singh Kalra v. U.0.1., (1991] 2 SCC 87, EMC Steel Ltd. v. Union 
of India, (1991] 2 SCC 101 and V. Rajaswari v. Bombay Tyres lntdl. Ltd., 
(1995] Supp. 3 SCC 172, relied on. 
2 •. Thmigh the choice of proclaimed need cannot be whimsiCal or 
merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in 
favour of the landlady too aud courts should not also impose its own 
. wisdom forcibly upon the landlady to arrange her own affairs, according 
to their own perception carried away only by the interests or hardship of 
the tenant and inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order. of 
eviction. In adjudging the claim under Section 14-D what is required to be 
substantiated is that the landlady is a widow and that she wants the 
premises for her own residence and that the claim by her is bona .fide and 
not a feigned one. So far as a claim under Section 14(1)(e) is concerned, the 
very requirement has to be shown not only to be bona fide but the move of 
the landlord/landlady to seek the eviction of the tenant must be ge~uine. 
As far as the claim under Section 14-D is concerned, the widow-landlady's 
need for her own residence is recognised statutorily to be a valid one, but 
the move or request made to avail of the special benefit must be shown to 
be bona .fide and not a pretext only to get rid of the tenant.[39~C·D·E] 
I 
-
-
. -. 
S.N. KAPOOR v. BASANT LAL KHATRI [RAJU, J.] 
35 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7517 of 
A 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.2000 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.M. No. 5154/99 in C.R. No. 513 of 1998. 
WI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.