VINOD KUMAR versus ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1051 · Decided: 05-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
VINOD KUMAR
v.
ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI
(Civil Appeal No.3793 of 2016)
AUGUST 05, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:
s.14(1)(e) – Provision under – Providing for eviction of
residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement – Held
violative of Art.14 of the Constitution in *Satyawati Sharma case
making the provision applicable also to non-residential premises –
In the present case application u/s.14(1)(e) filed seeking eviction
of non-residential premises – Rent Controller followed summary
procedure – Procedure when challenged, was confirmed by High
Court – In appeal to Supreme Court, tenant  sought reference of
*Satyawati Sharma case for reconsideration to larger Bench – The
grounds for reference were that *Satyawati Sharma case was
contrary to Constitution Bench Judgment in **Gian Devi Anand
case; that it was per incuriam Three Judge Bench judgment in #Gauri
Shanker case; that without adverting to s.25-B, s.14(1)(e) could
not have been made applicable for non-residential premises and
that it was not open to the Court to read down the provisions of
s.14(1)(e) in *Satyawati Sharma case – Held: Judgment in
*Satyawati Sharma case cannot be said to be per incuriam or
contrary to the judgment of Constitution Bench in **Gian Devi
Anand case or three Judgment Bench judgment in #Gauri Shanker
case – Gauri Shanker case being on different provision and premise,
is distinguishable and cannot be said to be a binding precedent –
In **Gian Devi Anand case it was suggested to legislature to
consider making ‘bonafide requirement’ a ground for eviction in
respect of commercial premises as well – Rather *Satyawati Sharma
case seeks support from **Gian Devi Anand case – In pursuance
to the suggestion in **Gian Devi Anand case Delhi Rent Act, 1995
was enacted – The judgment in *Satyawati Sharma case was not a
case of reading down of s.14(1)(e), but was a case where a portion
of the provision which was discriminatory and violative of Art.14
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1051
  1051
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
was struck down – s.25-B being related to only procedure for
considering application u/s.14(1)(e), has no bearing on the issue
which was considered in *Satyawati Sharma case – Nothing in s.
25-B can be read which runs counter to what is laid down in
*Satyawati Sharma case – Therefore, non-consideration of s.25-B
in *Satyawati Sharma case cannot be a ground to refer the case to
larger Bench – Thus, there is no good ground to refer the judgment
in *Satyawati Sharma case for reconsideration by a larger Bench.
Legislation:
A legislation is complete, when the Act is passed by the
legislature and receives the assent of the President, even if it is not
enforced.
Judgments/Orders:
Principle of per incuriam – Meaning and applicability of.
Rejecting the plea to refer the judgment in  *Satyawati
Sharma case to larger   Bench and directing to list the matter for
consideration on merits, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The provision of Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 confines to the premises let for residential
purposes which may be required bonafide by the landlord for
occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his
family dependent on him. Part of Section 14(1)(e) was struck down
in *Satyawati Sharma case holding that Section 14(1)(e) is
violative of the doctrine  of equality embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution in so far as it discriminates between the premises
let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same
are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation for himself
or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts
the landlord’s right to seek eviction of the tenant from the
premises let for residential purposes only. [Paras 10, 11] [1063-
B-D]
1.2 Prior to *Satyawati Sharma case, the provisions of
Section 14(1)(e) were resorted to, by the landlord for seeking
recovery of possession only with regard to residential premises.
After the said judgment landlords of non-residential premises
started filing application for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) which
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
are dealt with by the Rent Controller as per procedure contained
in Chapter III-A of the Act, 1958. Chapter III-A contains
‘Summary Trial of Certain Applications’. [Paras 11 and 12]
[1063-C; 1064-A-B]
2.1 The principle of per incuriam has been developed by
the English Courts in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. In
practice per 

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