Bonafide Need of Landlord: Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India, Appeal (civil) 1897 of 2003
In Satyawati case (supra) the Court held that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is in violation of the doctrine of equality as provisioned in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is violation of the doctrine as it discriminates between the premises that is let out for residential and non-residential purposes by the landlord and it is required for bona fide by the landlord may be for the purpose of occupation or it is required for a family member who is dependent on him. The provision of the Act restricts the landlord’s right from seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises rented out for non-residential purposes. The Court has only struck down the discriminatory portion of Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act.
In the instant case, the Apex Court held that Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is unconstitutional as far as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes. That the said provision is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court further observed that “there is no denial of equality nor any arbitrariness in the second limb of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, read in the manner contended for by the appellant. Article 21 is not violated so far as the landlord is concerned. The rent restricting Acts are beneficial legislations for the protection of the weaker party in the bargains of letting very often. These must be so read that these balance harmoniously the rights of the landlords and the obligations of the tenants.”
The Apex Court held that the legislature provided for this distinction considering the situations that existed at the time when the act was promulgated. Uprooted by the partition, tenants needed such protection by restricting the rights of the landlord to recover possession, in order to settle down.
It is pertinent to note that the Legislature itself treats commercial tenancy differently from a residential tenancy in the matter of the eviction of the tenant in the Delhi Rent Act and also in various other Rent Acts. All the grounds for eviction of a tenant of residential premises are not made grounds for eviction of a tenant in respect of commercial premises. But the Court in the instant case had suggested that the legislature may consider getting rid of the said distinction.
The Supreme Court clarified that Section14 (1)(e) of the Act is to be read as “that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or for any members of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.”. Here, the Court highlighted that the ‘bonafide use of the premises’ by the landlord needs to be considered while dealing with the eviction petition filed by the landlord.
Vinod Kumar v. Ashok Kr. Gandhi (CA 3793 of 2013), judgment delivered on 05.08.2019
In the instant case, the divisional bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue whether the judgment delivered in Satyawati Sharma case (supra) said to be per incuriam or not. The Court clarified that in the said judgment the Court has not totally struck down Section 14(1)(e) of the Act however, it has struck down only the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e).
The Satyawati Sharma Case judgment was examined by the constitutional bench in the case of Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 683. The division bench in Vinod Kumar Case noted that the Constitution Bench in the Devi case did not declare provisions of Section 14(1)(e) unconstitutional rather left it to the Legislature to amend the law. In the Devi Case (supra) the Court was satisfied that a ground for eviction of tenant of commercial premises on bona fide requirement of landlord should also be provided.
The division bench in the Vinod Kumar Case observed that the landlord who let out commercial premises, under changed circumstances, may need bona fide premises for his own use. The Legislature may take into consideration the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord a ground of eviction of the tenant with regard to the commercial premises as well.
Traditional interpretations must adapt changing scenario
In the case of Satyawati Sharma, Justice Singvi observed that “There has been a definite shift in the court’s approach while interpreting the rent control legislations. An analysis of the judgements of the 1950s to early 1990s would indicate that in the majority of cases the courts heavily leaned in favour of an interpretation which would benefit the tenant. However, a different trend is clearly discernible in the later judgments”.
Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was introduced by the legislature while considering the conditions that had prevailed during the time when the Act was enacted. The Court observed that the time has changed and it held that a reasonable and balanced approach needs to be adopted and stated that “while interpreting rent control legislations, starting with an assumption that an equal treatment has been meted out to both the sections of the society.”
Conclusion
Before the judgment passed in the case of Satyawati Sharma, the premises let out for commercial purposes by the landlord had no remedy to get the premises vacated under the Act and hence, it was indeed in violation of the rights of the landlord.
With the passage of time many such issues came before the Supreme Court for consideration wherein the Court through its landmark judgment modified the provision by striking down the violative provision.
In this case, the court held that the landlords cannot be precluded to file an eviction petition against their tenants on the ground of bonafide need for the non-residential premises. Recently, in 2019 the Apex Court has upheld the ruling of the Satyawati Sharma Case and stated that it is a good law.
There have been a number of cases wherein the Court has held favouring the rights of the tenants and ensuring that they should not be exploited by the landlords. However, in this judgment the court has considered the right of the landlord to evict the tenant in case the premises is required for bonafide purposes. That it is a good law maintaining a balance between the landlords and the tenants, no doubt that the rights of both the parties should be considered.
Informative post