SATYAWATI SHARMA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 16-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 566 
A 
SATYAWATI SHARMA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
+- .. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1897 of 2003) 
B 
APRIL 16, 2008 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: 
s.14(1)(e) -
Constitutionality of - Held: s.14(1)(e) is 
c violative of doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of 
Constitution insofar as it discriminates between premises let 
for residential and non-residential purposes when same are 
required bona fide by landlord for occupation for himself or for 
any member of his family dependent on him, and restricting 
D latter's right to seek eviction of tenant from premises let for 
residential purposes only- Discriminatory portion of s. 14(1 )(e) 
struck down - While adopting this course, well recognized rule 
kept in view that offending portion of statute can be severed 
without doing violence to remaining part thereof - Legislation 
E - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995- s.22(r)- Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 14. 
s.14(1)(e) - Classification of premises with reference to 
purpose of their user - Reasonableness of - Held: The 1958 
Act which was reasonable at the time of enactment has. with 
F lapse of time or changed circumstances become unreasonable 
- Period of almost 50 years has elapsed from enactment of 
~ .. 
1958 Act - During this long span of time those who came from 
West Pakistan as refugees and even their next generations 
have settled down in different parts of country and occupying 
G prime positions in various fields and earned wealth - Not only 
this, availability of premises which can be let for non-residential 
purposes has substantially increased - Therefore, reason to 
sustain classification of premises with reference to purpose of 
their user, is no longer available for negating challenge to 
H 
566 
SATYAWATI SHARMA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. UNION OF 
567 
INDIAANDANR. 
• -I 
s. 14(1)(e) on ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution A 
- Legislation - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 - s. 22(r) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. 
Rent Control and eviction~ History of Rent Control 
Legislation discussed - Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 
B 
1941 - Delhi Rent Control Ordinance, 1944 - Delhi and Ajmer-
Marwara Rent Control Act, 1947 - Delhi and Ajmer Rent 
Control Act, 1952 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1995 
Judicial notice - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 - Makes c 
no distinction between premises let for residential and non-
residential purposes for seeking eviction on ground of bona 
fide need - Although 1995 Act is yet to be enforced, judicial 
notice taken of fact that legislature has removed implicit 
embargo on landlord's right to recover possession of premises D 
if same are bona fide required by him/her, after taking note of 
developments which took place in the last 37 years i.e. 
substantial increase in availability of commercial and non-
residential premises or premises which can be let for 
commercial or non-residential purposes and meteoric rise in 
prices of land and rentals of residential as well as non-
E 
residential premises. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14 - Doctrine of equality - Applicability of -
Reasonable classification - Theory of. 
F 
.. ~ 
Article 14 - Changed circumstances/Lapse of time -
Legislation- Constitutionality of- Held: Legislation which may 
be quite reasonable and rationale at the time of its enactment 
may with the lapse of time and/or due to change of 
G 
circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable .and violative 
of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such 
legislation may have been upheld at a given point of time, the 
Court may, in subsequent litigation, strike down the same if it 
is found that the rationale of classification has become non-
existent. 
H 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
In the writ petition filed by landlords before the High Court, 
~ ~ 
prayer made was that s.14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 
was violative of equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the 
Constitution insofar as it differentiated between the premises 
let for residential and non-residential purposes in the matter of 
B eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord 
and restricts the landlord's right only to the residential premises. 
t 
The writ petitions were heard by the Full Bench of High 
Court along with the other writ petitions involving challenge to 
the vires of s.14(1)(e). After referring to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.