Holding

Clause (h) of Section 14(1) disqualifies a tenant only when the tenant himself acquires vacant possession of another residence; acquisition by the wife does not attract the provision.

Summary

The appellant, B.R. Mehta, had been a tenant of a house in Kalkaji since 1968. In 1978 his wife, a government teacher, was allotted a separate government quarter, which she later vacated and rejoined the family home. The landlord sought eviction of the appellant under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming the wife’s allotment constituted acquisition of a vacant residence by the tenant. The lower courts held the appellant liable for eviction, but the Supreme Court examined whether the statutory provision applies when only the spouse, not the tenant, acquires a residence. The Court held that clause (h) applies only when the tenant himself acquires vacant possession of another dwelling; acquisition by the wife does not divest the tenant’s right. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed and the orders of the lower courts set aside.

Issues considered

Whether allotment of a house to the tenant's wife, who is a government employee, falls within clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, thereby disqualifying the tenant from retaining the tenanted premises.
Whether acquisition of a residence by the spouse can be treated as acquisition by the tenant for the purpose of invoking Section 14(1)(h).
Whether the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement is affected by the spouse's separate accommodation.
Interpretation of the terms "vacant possession" and "acquired by the tenant" under the Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(h), s. 37

Subjects

Delhi Rent Control ActSection 14(1)(h)tenancyevictiongovernment allotmentspouse acquisitionvacant possessionbona fide requirement

Judgment

A B.R. MEHTA
v.

SMT. ATMA DEVI & ORS.

SEPTEMBER 2, 1987
B
[SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI & G.L. OZA, JJ.]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(J)(h)-Allotment of
house to wife-A Government employee-Whether disentitles the
husband to retain the tenanted premises as tenant. i
c

1
The premises in question had been let out in April, 1968 to the
appellant at a monthly rent of Rs.340 by the husband of respondent No. l
and the father of respondents Nos. 2 to 8. In July, 1977 the landlord
filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of bona
D fide requirement. In September, )978 appellant's wife was allotted a
Government quarter due to her employment as a teacher in the Govern-
ment school. In March, 1986 the first respondent filed a petition before
the Rent Controller that the wife of the appellant having been allotted a
"' '

residential quarter came within the mischief of clause (h) of Section
14(1) of the Act and was, therefore, liable for eviction.

E The appellant contended that he had not acquired any house and
that the quarter in question was allotted to his wife on joint allotment
basis on compassionate grounds and that the same had been
surrendered and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to be evicted. It
was further contended that the allotted accommodation could not be -.,---:
treated as alternative accommodation for the appellant and his family.
F
The Additional Rent Controller held that having regard to the
provisions -of law, as the tenant had acquired vacant possession for
residence, he became disentitled to retain the premises in question and,
therefore, passed an order of eviction.

G The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant. ~
The High Court rejected the second appeal.

In the appeal to this Court, the question for consideration was:
whether under clause (h) of Section; 14(1) of the Act allotment of a house
to the wife, who was a Government employee, in all circumstances disen-
H titled the tenant to retain the tenanted premises.

1184
B.R. MEHTA v. ATMA DEVI 1185

Allowing the appeal, this Court,
A
HELD: 1. The premises iu question which the wife occupied
was indisputably not the matrimonial home. The husband would
not, therefore, have any statutory or legal right against the Govern-
'r ment to use and enjoy the allotted premises to the wife of the tenant
because of her job. The tenant cannot he made to lose his tenancy B
because of the wife acquiring possession of a flat or allotment of a
flat because of her official duties over which the husband has no
right or domain or occupation. [1194C-D]
2.1 The purpose of the Delhi Rent Control Act is to control rents
and evictions; in other words, to control unreasonable eyictions and to
ensure that in an atmosphere of acute shortage of accommodation, C
there is proper enjoyment of available spaces by those who want and
deserve. [1189G-H]

2.2 Unless acquisition of a premises or allotment of a premises or
a part of a premises by the tenant in which he has domain which he can
-""'\ reasonably and alternatively use as substitute for the place he is using in D
the tenancy, it cannot le11d to forfeiture of his right to occupy his
tenanted premises. The case would be otherwise, however, if a tenant
comes into possession of a premises or is allotted a piece of residence or
acquires vacant possession of the premises then such a tenant cannot
prevent, if other conditions are fulfilled under Section 14(l)(h) of the
-~ Act being liable to forfeiture of his tenancy. [1190B-C] E

~ 2.3 Tenancy is a right vested in the tenant. The main purpose of
the Act is the protection of tenants from eviction. The various provisos
-(" to sub-section (1) of section 14 laid down the exception to this rule. The
intention of the Legislature in divesting the tenant of his right was based
upon the fact that the tenant had legally acquired another residence as F
of right. There is no law according to which husband and wife could he
deemed to be one person. [1191E-F]

2.4 The acquisition of other residence must be by the tenant
himself before proviso (b) of sub-s. (I) of section 14 of the Act
)- would apply. (11910]
G
2.5 If a wife or husband acquires a property and the other spouse
if he/she is the tenant, has a legal right by virtue of such acquisiti<m a11d
stay there, then only can such acquisition or allotment of premb;es
would disentitle or attract the provisions of cl. (h) of sectio1114(1) of the
Act, otherwise the whole purpose would be defeated. That is the
rationale behind the scheme. [1191F·G] H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R. -.4.
A 2.6 From the fact that the wife of the tenant was allotted a
temporary Government accommodation, it cannot be said that there
was admission by virtue of which the tenant could lose his tenancy that
the wife has acquired a house which is available to the husband over
which the husband has a domain which could be a substitute to the
tenanted premises. This fact of acquisition or allotment of flat in the i
B name of wife (which incidentally she has lost having given up the job)
can be in certain circumstances a factor in judging the bona fide needs .
of the landlord; but the same indisputably cannot be any ground to evict 1.
the tenant on the ground that he has acquired vacant possession or
allotted residence in terms of cl. (h) of section 14(1). [1192E·F, U93A·Bl

c 3. The rights, if any, of the parties in the eviction petition on the
ground of bona fide need of the landlord will not in any manner be

1
prejudicially affected. [1194F]

[In England the rights of the spouses to the matrimonial home are
now governed by the provisions of the M&trimonial Homes Act, 1967.
D Where one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of any /'-
estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him
or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is not so
entitled, then the spouse not so entitled has the certain rights (known as
"rights of occupation"), that is to say, if in occupation, a right not to be
evicted or excluded from the dwelling house or any part of it by the
E other spouse except with the leave of the court given by an order; if not
in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into
and occupy the dwelling house. [11930-G]

Such rights are not granted in India. But with the change of )
situation and complex problems arising, it is high time to give the wife
F or the spouse a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case
of marriage breaking up or in case of strained relationship between the
husband and the wife.] [1193G]

Prem Chand and another v. Sher Singh, (1981] Delhi Rent Judg-
ment 287; Smt. Revti Devi v. Kishan Lal, (1970] All India Rent Con·
G trot Journal 418; Phiroze Bama11ji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel and ~
others, [1974] 3 SCR 267; Gajanan Dattatrava v. Sherbanu Hosang
Patel and others, [1976] I SCR 535 and Halsbury's Laws of England,
Fourth Edition, Vol. 22 page 650, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1170
H of 1987.
B.R. MEHTA v. ATMA DEVI [MUKHARJI, .1.) 1187
)..
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.1987 of the Delhi High A
Court in S.A.O. No. 71of1987.

Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Dr. Roxna Swamy and Bharat Sangal for
.,. the Appellant.
B
A.B. Rohtagi and Miss Bina Gupta for the Respondents.

' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J, What is the true meaning of the
expression 'tenant has before or after the commencement of the Act,
built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence' in c
terms of clause (h) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is the question raised in this appeal
in the backdrop of interesting set of facts. This is an appeal by the
tenant against the judgment and order dated 6th April, 1987 of the
Delhi High Court. To the facts first, however, we must go to
,.. appreciate the point. The appellant was at all material times since 1968
D
a tenant of the ground floor of premises No. 2/14, Kalkaji Extention,
New Delhi. The premises had been let out in April, 1968 to the appel-
!ant at a monthly rent of Rs.340 per month by one Shri R.N. Kurra,
deceased husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos.
2 to 8. The premises consist of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one
~ dining room, one kitchen, two bath rooms and court yard at the back E
and porch in the front and one store and also one verandah. It is the
case of the appellant that originally the appellant had occupied these
.,. alongwith his wife, his age~ mother, his son, daughter, brother and
sister-in-law. However, the brother and sister-in-law have since moved
out and since 1979 the appellant's wife Smt. Santosh Raj was only
staying with the family off and on for short periods usually when the F
appellant was on tour. In the meantime on or about 20th July, 1977 the
landlord filed eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of
bona fide requirement. On or about 25th September, 1978 the appel-
!ant's wife Smt. Santosh Raj was allotted Flat No. 93, Sadiq Nagar,
i.e., a government quarter was given to her due to her employment as
}-
a teacher in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School No. III, G
Kalkaji, New Delhi. She goes to live there leaving the rest of her
family in the premises in dispute. It is the case of the appellant as made
out in appeal before us that one Shri P.R. Arya and his family were
asked to share with the appellant's wife on a joint-allotment basis
because it was not safe for a lady to live alone. The case of the appel-
!ant was that the relationship between the appellant and his wife Smt. H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
-.I,
A Santosh Raj was not very good. There were differences of opinion.
The appellant wanted the wife to give up her job and concentrate on
the upbringing of the children. The lady was reluctant. She wanted to
pursue her own avocation and career. It is highlighted before us that in
those circumstances the wife of appellant had applied for government
accommodation and had gone to live in the said premises. However, i
B by force of circumstances as the children have grown up and daughters
became of marriageable age she was induced to give up her job and
-~
allotment and she has come back to the husband's premises being the
premises in dispute. On 17th of March, 1986 respondent No. 1 filed in
the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi a petition on the ground that
the wife of the appellant Smt. Santosh Raj had been allotted on 25th of

~
c September, 1978 a residential quarter from the Directorate of Educa-
tion, Delhi by virtue of her employment in Government Girls Higher
Secondary School No. III, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The appellant there-
fore came within the mischiefof clause (h) of section 14(1) of the Act.
Written statement was duly filed in which it was stated that appellant
had not acquired any house but that the landlord had tried to take
D advantage of the strained relationship between the tenant and his wife.
!'-
It was stated that the tenant had strained relationship with his wife and
on account of the same only she had acquired a separate accommoda-
tion and started staying there and got her ration card prepared at the
same address but since the appellant had grown up children and
remained on touring job; therefore, in order to provide the required
E protection and care, the wife of the appellant came to the house in ~
question temporarily. It was stated that this fact is well within the
knowledge of the landlord and other members of the family. It was
denied that Smt. Santosh Raj, the tenant had sublet the quarter No.

F
93. On the other hand it was apparent that the department had allotted
the house to the wife of the appellant alongwith one other colleague
jointly, who had now surrendered the same. It was further stated that
""
this joint allotment had been made to the appellant's wife on compas-
sionate grounds. The appellant was, therefore, not liable to be evicted
from the premises in question it was asserted. The case was proceeded
under section 37 of the Act. It was the contention of the appellant that
he wanted to substantiate by production of evidence both oral and
G documentary that the flat allotted to his wife was on compassionate i
grounds in recognition of her special need to live apart from him. It
could not be an alternative accommodation for the appellant and his
family. It was further stated that the wife was allotted Flat No. 93,
Sadiq Nagar on 25th September, 1978. A few months later, the appel-
!ant's wife was all alone in the flat and felt the need for some company,
H and she arranged one of her colle~gues Mrs. P.R Arya alongwith her
B.R. MEHTA v. ATMA DEVI (MUKHARJI, J.] 1189
>- family should come to stay with her in th4s flat. Mrs. Arya's husband A
Mr. P.R. Arya was entitled to such accommodation in his own right as
a teacher in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Hari Nagar
Ashram, New Delhi and accordingly the appellant's wife arranged to
have the flat jointly allotted to herself and Mr. P.R. Arya. Mr. P.R.
r Arya with his family entered the flat on or about 28th April, 1979 and
continued to share the flat with the appellant's wife for three years B
only. In 1982 they moved out of the flat and since then the appellant's

'
wife has continued in the flat. In 1978 when she first occupied the flat,
the appellant's wife had a separate ration card giving the flat as her
address and had drawn ration on that basis and not with her family in
the suit premises. It was further stated that the appellant should have

,
been permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary on all c
the above facts. But the learned Additional Rent Controller directed
that no evidence need be necessary as the matter could be decided on
admitted facts. In view of the provisions of Jaw as the tenant had
acquired vacant possession for residence became disentitled to retain
the premises in question, he, therefore, passed an order of eviction.
D
"'I
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant went up in appeal
being R.C.A. No. 957 of 1986. The learned Rent Control Tribunal
negatived the appellant's plea that he should have been allowed to
produce evidence in support of his averment of strained relations with
his wife and that on account of these strained relations he could not in

'
any way avail of the allotment of the flat to his wife. The Rent Control E
Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

Being aggrieved thereby the appellant approached the High
-1 Court in second appeal. The High Court by its impugned judgment
dated 6th of April, 1987 summarily rejected the appeal. Being further
aggrieved the appellant has come up to this Court as mentioned F
hereinbefore.

The short question is whether under clause (h) of Section 14( I)
of the Act allotment of a house to a wife who is a Government
employee in all circumstances disentitled the tenant to retain the
}- tenanted premises. We are unable to accept the view of the Delhi High G
Court. We have noted the provisions. The purpose of the Act is to
control rents and eviction, in other words, to control unreasonable
evictions and to ensure that in an atmosphere of acute shortage of
accommodation, there is proper enjoyment of available spaces by
those who want and deserve. In other words, to ensure that there is no
unreasonable and unnecessary spaces in the hands of one tenant and H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A other tenants and landlords' need of occupation of spaces remains
unsatisfied; clause (h) of Section 14( 1) is an attempt in a way to ration
out accommodation between tenants and landlords. Looked at from
that point of view unless acquisition of a premises or a flat or allotment
of a premises or part of a premises by the tenant in which he has
domain which he can reasonably and alternatively use as a substitute
B for the place he is using in the tenancy it cannot lead to a forfeiture of
his right to occupy his tenanted premises. The case would be
otherwise, however, if a tenant comes into possession of a premises or
is allotted a piece of residence or acquires vacant possession of the
premises then such a tenant cannot prevent, if other conditions are
fulfilled under section 14( l)(h) of the Act being liable to forfeiture of
his tenancy. But counsel for the respondent heavily relied on a
C decision of this Court in Prem Chand and another v. Sher Singh, [ 1981]
Delhi Rent Judgment 287. That was a case under the Delh,i Rent
Control Act, 1958 and section 14( l)(h) of the Act came up for conside-
ration. The respondent-tenant was out of possession since October 9,
1976. He was dispos;essed during the pendency of the appeal before
D the Rent Control Tribunal. The respondent's son was a business
executive, who was, at one time, allotted a flat by his employers. On
December 12, 1980, the respondent's wife purchased a flat at Saket
from the Delhi Development Authority, at a cost of about
Rs. 1,20,000. The flat was available to the respondent though his expla-
nation is that it had been let out by his wife to their son. The respon-
E
dent thereafter has now no case to be put back in possession of the flat
in dispute. Chandrachud, C.J. delivering the judgment of the Court
observed that the Court had allowed the appellants to amend their
applications for possession by pleading that the respondent had
acquired possesion of a vacant residence within the meaning of section
14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Having considered the
averments of the parties on the point at issue it was held in that case
F
that the respondent had through his wife acquired vacant possession of
a residence in Delhi and in that view of the matter was held not
entitled to retain old tenanted premises. Mr. Avadh Bihari Rohtagi,
learned counsel strenuously contended before us that this proposition
that acquisition of a flat by the wife was acquisition by the tenant and
such acquisition in all circumstances would be within the mischief of
G section 14( J)(h) of the Act and would disentitle the tenant to retain his
flat in question. We are unable to accept this reading of the said Act.
The said decision rested on the facts of that case. Theie in that case,
this Court found that the respondent's wife had purchased a flat in
Sake! and further found that the flat was available to the respondent.
In those circumstances it was held that there was acquisition of vacant
H possession of a residence and as such section 14( l)(h) of the Act would
B.R. MEHTA v. ATMA DEVI [MUKHARJI, J.l 1191
>--
be attracted. It cannot however be laid down as a general proposition
A
of law that acquisition of flat by the wife in all circumstances would
amount to acquisition of flat by the tenant. This position bas been very
properly highlighted in the decision of the Delhi High Court in Smt.
Revti Devi v. KL~han Lal, [1970] All India Rent Control Journal 418
)" where Deshpandey, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was; held that
the mere occupation of a new residence by the tenant without any legal B
right to do so would not be covered by proviso (h) to section 14(1) of
1 the Delhi Rent Control Act. If he goes to stay in the house of his wife,
legally speaking, he has no right as such to stay and can be turned out from
the house at any time by its legal owner, namely, the wife. There was
... no law according to which the husband and the wife could be deemed
to be one person. Therefore, where proviso (h) required that the
c
{ tenant himself should acquire vacant possession of another residence
before he can become liable to eviction, the effect of its language
cannot be whittled down by arguing that proviso (h) wonld apply even
if it is not the tenant himself but his wife or his other relation were to
acquire such other residence. Therefore, as a general proposition of
law, the acquisition of other residence must be by the tenant himself D
~ before proviso (h) to sub-s. (1) of s. 14 of the Act would apply. The
learned Judge dealt with this and observed that in construing the
above provision, it has to be borne in mind that the scheme of the Act
had to be appreciated. Tenancy is a right vested in the tenant. The
main purpose of the Act is the protection of tenants from eviction. The

~
various provisos to sub-s. (1) of s. 14 laid down the exception to this E
rule. The learned Judge observed that when proviso fh) made tenant.
"""' liable to eviction, its effect was to divest the tenant of his right of
tenancy. The intention of the legislature in divesting the tenant of his
right was based upon the fact that the tenant had legally acquired
another residence as of right. There is no law according to which
husband and wife could be deemed to be one person. Therefore, the
correct position must be that if a wife or a hu~band acquires a property F
and the other spouse if he/she is the tenant, has a legal right by virtue
of such acquisition and stay there, then only can such acquisition or
allotment of premises would disentitle or attract the provisions of
cl. (h) of section 14( 1), otherwise the whole purpose would be de-
\- feated. In other words if for all practical and real sense the tenant
• G
acquired, built or was allotted another residence then his need for the
old tenanted residence g0es and the tenant loses his right to retain his
tenanted premises. That is the rationale behind the scheme.

Dr. Roxna Swamy drew our attention to the various aspects of
the case where no proper opportunity was given to the tenant to show
that in fact the husband would not and did not have any right at all to H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987) 3 S.C.R.
..I.,
A come to the premises allotted to the wife which was taken because of
the strained relation of the husband and wife regarding the career of
the wife. In such a house the husband will not come, he will certainly
have no legal right or access for either staying or coming in the pre-
mises acquired by the wife. If it defeats the husband's tenancy then it
B
would be mockery of justice. Mr. Rohtagi tried to submit that there 1
was no evidence before the trial court as well the High Court of the
alleged strained relationship between the parties. What is necessary is
that unless there is a positive evidence, and here there is none, of
acquisition of property prima facie in the name of the tenant or allot-
ment of flat to the tenant, it cannot be said to have been acquired by
or allotted to some members of the tenant's family other than the wife.
' ~

c That cannot defeat the tenant's right under clause (h) of section 14( I).
)
If there is such an acquisition by or on behalf of the tenant then the
tenant and members of the tenant's family would have dominion over
the acquired residence. Such acquisition would bring to the tenant the
mischief of section 14(1)(h) of the Act. In the case of this nature the
appellate court had ample power in our opinion to have taken addi-
D tional evidence. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the learned ,...
Single Judge in the case of Raj Kumarv. Vedprakash, (1982) Jabalpur
Law Journal 451. Our attention was drawn at the bar that a judgment
can be given on admission, that is to say. in this case that an allotment
had been made in favour of the wife or the tenant. Our attention was
drawn to Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure, Vol. II, 14th Edition page

'
E 1148 which highlights that such oral admission must be definite and
unambiguous and must be satisfactorily established. In our opinion, >-
from the fact that the wife of the tenant was allotted a temporary
Government accommodation, it·cannot be said that there was admis-
sion by virtue of which the tenant could lose his tenancy that the wife -.,
has acquired a house which is available to the husband over which the
F husband has a domain which could be a substitute to the tenanted
premises. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that there
was no admission at all.

Our attention was drawn to certain observations of Bhagwati, J.,
as the learned Chief Justice then was, in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v.
G Chandrakant M. Patel and others, (1974) 3 S.C.R. 267, where dealing
with certain facts whether premises given on a licence could be con-
sidered in considering the bona fide requirement of the landlord to the
allotment or acquisition. In our opinion, this principle is wholly
irrelevant for the point in controversy before this Court. We are not
concerned here whether there was ground for bona fide requirement of
H the landlord for which a suit had been filed and which is pending
B.R. MEHTA v. ATMA DEVI IMUKHARJI, J.] 1193

appeal. This fact of acquisition or allotment of flat in the name of wife A
(which incidentally she has Jost having given up her job) can be in
certain circumstances a factor in judging the bona fide needs of the
landlord; but the same indisputably cannot be any ground to evict the
tenant on the ground that he has acquired vacant possession or been
allotted residence in terms of clause (h) of section 14(1). Mr. Rohtagi
drew our attention to certain observations of this Court in Gajanan 8
Dattatraya v. Sherbanu Hosang Patel and others, [ 1976) 1 S.C.R. 535,
where this Court held that the tenant's liability to eviction arises when
the fact of unlawful subletting is proved. The fact that subsequently
the other tenant had left the premises does not cure the mischief done.
Mr. Rohtagi placing this decision tried to urge before us that the
~-
allotment itself of a residence or acquisition of a residence by the C
tenant or the wife of the tenant was sufficient to attract clause (h) of
section 14(1) of the Act. The fact that subsequently the tenant had left
the premises was irrelevant and did not affect the position. It.was
further submitted that the tenant had acquired a premises or allotted a
residence which could be considered to be so in terms of clause (h) of
section 14(1) but the flat in question allotted to the wife of the tenant D
could not by any stretch of imagination be considered to be a matrimo-
nial home. In England the rights of the spouses be husband or wife to
the matrimonial home are now governed by the provisions of
Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth
Edition, Vol. 22 page 650 deals with the rights of occupation in
matrimonial home and paragraph 1047 deals with and provides that E
where one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of
any estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving
him or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is
not so entitled, then the spouse not so entitled has the certain rights
(known as "rights of occupation") that is to say if in occupation, a right
not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling house or any part of it F
by the other spouse except with the leave of the court given by an
order if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given
to enter into and occupy the dwelling house. But such rights are not
granted in India though it may be that with change of situation and
complex problems arising it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a
~- right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of marriage G
breaking up or in case of strained relationship between the husband
and the wife. We, however, cannot for the purpose of this case get
much assistance from the principle adumbrated in paragraph 1047 of
Halsbury's Laws of England. In England cases before 1968 established
that occupation of the matrimonial home by a tenant's wife after the
tena, had left counts as occupation by the tenant so as to preserve the H
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A statutory tenancy for as long as the marriage itself subsists. In those
circumstances in England the landlord could not properly be granted
an order for possession against the husband unless there were avail-
able grounds for possession against both husband and wife. The tenant
cannot abandon his rights while his wife remains; nor can the landlord
evict the wife even if the tenant consents or purports to surrender his
B statutory tenancy. This is the result of the case law in England and
much social awareness and the case laws have been given statutory
expression in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. We have no such law.
The premises in question which the wife occupied was indisputably not
the matrimonial home. It is nobody's case. The husband would not,
therefore, have any statutory or legal right against the Government to
C use and enjoy the allotted premises to the wife of the tenant because of
her job. Looked at from any point of view, the tenant cannot be made to
lose his tenancy because of wife acquiring possession of a flat or allot- >
ment of a flat because of her official duties over which the husband has
no right or domain or occupation.

D In the premises we are unable to sustain the judgment under
appeal. To complete the story the wife of the tenant has resigned and
has joined the husband at 2/14, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. We
hope there will be no more strained relationship in the family. Here-
after they will live happily provided the landlord permits so. We shall
try to ensure that they so permit.
E
The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High
Court and the Courts below are set aside. The eviction petition under
section 14(J)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is dismissed. In
the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will bear and pay
their own costs. This, however, will not in any manner prejudice the
F rights, if any, of the parties in the other eviction petition on the ground
of bona fide need of the landlord which we are told is still pending.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed.

.
...
' ...'
"

•