TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... site 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 legislature conferring certain rights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to recover from their tenants immediate possession of the premises for their occupation. [369E] 2.1 The Tenant cannot claim right to contest an application for eviction on the grounds specified in Section 14(l)(e) against the classified landlords falling under Sections 14B to 14D. Acceptance of such a claim would practically obliterate the purpose and object of classification of landlords under Sections 14B to 14D who are carved out from the general landlords; indeed it would render the whole exercise of creating special classes of landlords with specified rights to recover immediate of the premises let out by them nugatory. [371H-372C] 2.2 The remedy under Section 14(l)(e) is available only to landlords in general or the landlords who are not classified landlords under Sections 14B to 14D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceive a purposeful construction and sub-section (5) of Section 25B should be so construed as to implement the object and purpose of Sections 14B to 14D. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in Sections 148 to 14D. [378E] 4. The tenant is entitled to raise all relevant contentions as against the claim of the classified landlords. The fact that there is no reference to the word bona fide requirement in Sections 14B to 14D do not absolve the landlord from proving that the requirement is bona fide or the tenant from showing that it is not bona fide. In fact every claim for eviction against a tenant must be a bona fide one. There is also enough indication in support of this construction from the title of section 25B which states special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement . [378H-379B] 5. Section 14B and other allied provisions refer to the premises let out and not acquired by transfer. One may become an owner of the premises by transfer but the tenant in occupation of the transferred property cannot be evicted by resorting to Sections 14B to 14D. If the transferee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... later, apply to the controller for recovering the immediate possession of their premises. That is the legislative wisdom. [38OF-G] 9. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there, but where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meanings, it is permissible to supply the words . Having regard to the context in which a provision appears and, the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted, the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. [378E-G] Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, P. 109; Hameedia Hardware Stores V. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25, and Sirajul Haq Khan Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, [1959].1 SCR 1287 at 1299, relied upon. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 837. 838 and 839 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5-1990 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1381, 299 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court dismissing the writ petition, the tenant has preferred SLP No. 7146 of 1990. Against the order dismissing the revision petition, the tenant has preferred SLP No. 11425 of 1990. The tenant in SLP No. 7364 of 1990 has also challenged the order of eviction in a revision petition before the High Court and we are told that the revision is still pending. Like the other tenant, he has also questioned the validity of Section 14-B before the High Court under Article 226. The High Court dismissed that petition following the decision in Mahendra Raj's case. It would be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act 'before dealing with the points raised in these cases. The Act applies to premises which are defined by Section 2(i) as meaning, inter alia, any building or part of a building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any or other purpose. Section 14 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions. The released or retired persons from armed forces or the dependents of the member of armed forces who had been killed in action are covered by Section 14-B. They could recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if they are required for their own residence. The retired employees of the Central Government and of the Delhi Administration are covered by Section 14-C. They could recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if they are needed for their own residence. The landlords who are widows are covered by Section 14-D with similar right to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them or by their husband. These classified landlords are also given the benefit of the summary trial under Chapter III-A, by introducing Sections 14-B to 14-D in sub- section (1) of Section 25-B. The sub-section (1) of Section 25-B as it stands provides that every application by a landlord for recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14-A or under Section 14-B or under Section 14-C or under Section 14-D shall be dealt with in accordance with the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecover against eviction. immediate possession of premises to accrue to members of the armed forces etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything (1) Where the landlord:- to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, (a) is a released or retired no order or decree for person from any armed the recovery of possession forces and the premises let of any premises shall be out by him are required for made by any Court on his own residence; or Controller in favour of the (b) is a dependent of a landlord against a tenant: member of any armed forces who had been killed in action and the premises let Provided that the Controller out by such member are may, on an application made required for the residence to him in the prescribed of the family of such manner make an order for the member, recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds Such person or, as the case only, namely- may be, the dependent may, within one year from the xxx xxx xxx date of his release or retirement from such armed (e) that the premises let forces or, as the case may for residential purposes are be, the date of death of required bona fide by the such member, or within a landlord for occu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order for recovery of possession of any premises is made on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) the landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order. Under Section 14(l)(e), the premises let out for residence could be recovered from the tenant, if the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own occupation or for any member of his family dependent on him. The eviction could also be sought for any person for whose benefit the premises are held. The condition being apart from the requirement must be bona fide, there shall be no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation for the landlord or for whose benefit the premises are held. The explanation to Section 14(1)(e) provides premises let for residential purposes include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes. That means if with the consent of the landlord the premises let for residential purposes are used for commercial or other purposes, the landlord will have difficult task to evict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can choose any one of the premises which he has let out. Here again we find that there is no such restriction to a landlord covered under Section 14(l)(e) provided the requirement of the landlord is bona fide and he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Section 14(l)(e) does not preclude the landlord from seeking eviction of more than one premises provided he establishes the need. Similar are the provisions in allied Sections 14-C and 14-D. It will be thus seen that Sections 14-B to 14-D are markedly different from Section 14(1)(e). Notwithstanding these two independent provisions with specified rights to landlords in general and the classified landlords, Counsel for the tenants argued that Section 14(l)(e) is the weapon of defence for the tenant even against the applications under Sections 14-B or 14-C or 14- D. The tenant is entitled to leave to contest the application by disclosing such facts in his affidavit which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e). This contention is sought to be supported first, by the retention of sub-section (5) of Section 25-B without any amendment, second, absence of amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 25-B, it must be equally available to sub-section (2) of Section 25-B. There is also no corresponding amendment to the summons to be issued under subsection (2) and the form specified in the Third Schedule after the introduction of Section 14-B to 14- D. Third Schedule is in these terms: The Third Schedule Form of Summons in a case where recovery of possession of Premises is Prayed for on the ground of bona fide requirement or under Section 14-A. To (Name, description and place of residence of the tenant) Whereas Shri _________________________________has filed an application (a copy of which is annexed) for your eviction from (here insert the particulars of the premises) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14-A; You are hereby summoned to appear before the Controller within fifteen days of the service hereof and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction on the ground aforesaid; in default whereof, the applicant will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days to obtain an order for your evic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction and subsection (5) of Section 25-B should be so construed as to implement the object and purpose of Section 14-B to 14-D. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 14-B to 14-D. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which are not there, but where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives certain existing words of all meanings, it is permissible to supply the words (Craies Statute Law, 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal Sowcar, [ 1988] 2 SCC 513 at 524-25 where it was observed that the court construing a provision should not easily read into it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. (See: Siraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the premises. it is always left to the Controller who is a quasi-judicial authority to exercise his discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The Controller must exercise his judicial discretion in every case of eviction and grant a reasonable time to the tenant. There is one other aspect which requires elucidation. In Busching Schmitz Private Limited v. P. T. Meighani and Anr., [1977] 2 SCC 835 this Court while dealing with the scope of Section 14-A and the corresponding right of the tenant to resist the application thereunder, has inter-alia, observed that sub-section (5) of Section 25-B cannot be equated with Order 37 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The social setting demanding summary proceeding, the nature of the subject-matter and, above all, the legislative diction which has been deliberately designed, differ in the two provisions. The Controller's power to give leave to contest the application filed under Section 14(l)(e) or Section 14-A is cribbed by the condition that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
