S. SURJIT SINGH KALRA ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 13-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
S. SURJIT SINGH KALRA ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1991 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, L.M. SHARMA AND 
P.B. SAWANT, JJ:] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 195R· Sections 14B to 14D; 14( l)(e), ~-
14(6) & 7 and 25C(2)-Classified Landlords-Landlord's right to evict 
tenant-Tenant's right to resist eviction-Scope of-Whether landlord 
has to prove his bona fide requirement. 
Section 25B: Introduction of Sections 14B to 14D in sub-section 
( 1) of Section 25B-Absence of corresponding amendments to sub-
sections (4) and (5) as also to the form of summons specified in the_ 
Third Schedule-Whether allows a tenant to take up defence under~
Section 14( l)(e) as against an application under Sections 14B to 14D. 
Sections 25B(5) is self contained and Order 37 Rule 3, CPC has 
no role there-CPC, 1908, Order 37 Rule 3. 
Interpretation of statutes-Reading words in a statute-When 
E 
permissible-Harmonious construction--:P~rposive approach to be. ~~ 
adopted by Courts. 
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was amended by Act 57 of 1988 
which introduced Sections 14B to 14D to the Act carving out thereby 
classified landlords from the general class of landlords with specified 
F 
rights to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if 
these are required for their own residence. The released or retired 
. 
persons from armed forces or the dependents of the member of armed~
forces killed in action are covered by Section 14B, the retired employees 
of the Central Government and of the Delhi Administration are covered 
by Section 14C, and the landlords who are widows are covered by 
G 
Section 14D. These classified landlords are also given the benefit of 
summary trial under Chapter DIA by introducing Sections 14B to 14D in 
Sub-section (1) of Section 25B, but there are no corresponding amend-
ments to sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 25B. 
",---
The two petitioners, who are tenants, were in occupation of the 
H 
premises belonging to two Army Officers (respondent-landlords). In the 
364 
-
SURJIT SINGH v. U.O.l. 
365 
action for eviction brought by the landlords on the ground that they 
needed the premises for their occupation, the tenants sought leave to 
contest the application which the Rent Controller being not satisfied 
·.~ ::;. the facts disclosed by the tenants in their affidavits denied. The 
Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlords and ordered eviction 
of the tenants. The two tenants challenged the eviction orders by filing 
separate revision petitions in the High Court. They also challenged the 
validity of Section 14B of the Act before the High Court by means of two 
separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High 
Court dismissed the writ petition and the revision petition tiled by one 
of the tenants who being aggrieved moved this Court by way of special 
Leave Petition Nos. 7146 & 11425 of 1990. In the case of the other 
tenant, the High Court following its decision in the first case dismissed 
the writ petition filed by him, though the revision petition tiled by him 
was still pending. The tenant challenged the decision of the High Court 
by preferring Special Leave Petition No. 7364 of 1990 to this Court. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the tenant's 
A 
B 
c 
right to contest the application for eviction on the grounds specified in 
D 
1 
Section 14(1)(e) cannot be denied even as against the classified landlords 
falling under Sections 14B to 14D. The tenant is entitled to leave to 
contest the application by disclosing such facts in the affidavit as would 
disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction under Sec-
tion 14(l)(e). This is because of retention of sub-section (5) of Section 
25B without any amendment and absence of amendment to Section 
E 
25C(2). It was also contended that sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 
25B are a composite scheme and since that scheme has been left 
untouched the tenant's right thereunder cannot be denied. It was 
further contended that sub-section (6) of Section 14 is attracted to 
applications under Sections 14B to 14D. 
Dismissing the Petitions, the Court, 
HELD: 1. Section 14B is a special provision made by the legisla-
ture conferring certain rights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to 
recover from their tenants immediate possession of the premises for 
F 
their occupation. [369E] 
G 
2.1 The Tenant cannot claim right to contest an application for 
eviction on the groun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.