Holding

A tenant cannot rely on the defence under Section 14(1)(e) against eviction applications filed under Sections 14B‑14D; the classified landlord’s right to evict is independent and the tenant’s contest is confined to the specific provisions of the applicable section.

Summary

The case concerned two tenants occupying premises let out by Army officers who, as classified landlords under Sections 14B‑14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, sought immediate possession for their own residence. The Rent Controller denied the tenants leave to contest the eviction applications, and the High Court upheld the evictions and dismissed writ petitions challenging the validity of Section 14B. The Supreme Court examined whether tenants could rely on the defence under Section 14(1)(e) (bona‑fide requirement) against applications filed under the special provisions of Sections 14B‑14D, and whether the unchanged sub‑section (5) of Section 25B preserved that right. The Court held that the special provisions create a separate, independent right for classified landlords; the tenant’s right to contest is limited to the specific grounds of the applicable section and cannot be expanded by invoking Section 14(1)(e). Sub‑section (5) of Section 25B is self‑contained and not governed by Order 37 Rule 3 CPC. The landlord must prove a bona‑fide requirement, and the summons must reflect the correct section. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of a tenant's right to contest eviction applications filed under Sections 14B‑14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Whether Section 14(1)(e) provides a defence to tenants against classified landlords' applications under Sections 14B‑14D.
Effect of the omission of amendments to sub‑sections (4) and (5) of Section 25B on the tenant's right to contest.
Whether Order 37 Rule 3 of the CPC applies to sub‑section (5) of Section 25B.
Whether the landlord must prove a bona‑fide requirement under Sections 14B‑14D and the relevance of sub‑sections (6) and (7) of Section 14.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 37 Rule 3
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958s. 14(1)(e), s. 14B, s. 14C, s. 14D, s. 25B, s. 25C(2)

Subjects

rent controlevictionclassified landlordbona fide requirementstatutory interpretationsummary procedureDelhi Rent Control ActSection 14BSection 25Btenant's right to contest

Judgment

S. SURJIT SINGH KALRA ETC.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC.

FEBRUARY 13, 1991

B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, L.M. SHARMA AND
P.B. SAWANT, JJ:]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 195R· Sections 14B to 14D; 14( l)(e), ~-
14(6) & 7 and 25C(2)-Classified Landlords-Landlord's right to evict
tenant-Tenant's right to resist eviction-Scope of-Whether landlord
has to prove his bona fide requirement.
c
Section 25B: Introduction of Sections 14B to 14D in sub-section
( 1) of Section 25B-Absence of corresponding amendments to sub-
sections (4) and (5) as also to the form of summons specified in the_
Third Schedule-Whether allows a tenant to take up defence under~
D Section 14( l)(e) as against an application under Sections 14B to 14D.

Sections 25B(5) is self contained and Order 37 Rule 3, CPC has
no role there-CPC, 1908, Order 37 Rule 3.

Interpretation of statutes-Reading words in a statute-When
E permissible-Harmonious construction--:P~rposive approach to be. ~~
adopted by Courts.

The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was amended by Act 57 of 1988
which introduced Sections 14B to 14D to the Act carving out thereby
classified landlords from the general class of landlords with specified
F rights to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them if
these are required for their own residence. The released or retired .
persons from armed forces or the dependents of the member of armed~
forces killed in action are covered by Section 14B, the retired employees
of the Central Government and of the Delhi Administration are covered
by Section 14C, and the landlords who are widows are covered by
G Section 14D. These classified landlords are also given the benefit of
summary trial under Chapter DIA by introducing Sections 14B to 14D in
Sub-section (1) of Section 25B, but there are no corresponding amend-
ments to sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 25B. ",---

The two petitioners, who are tenants, were in occupation of the
H premises belonging to two Army Officers (respondent-landlords). In the

364
SURJIT SINGH v. U.O.l. 365

- action for eviction brought by the landlords on the ground that they
needed the premises for their occupation, the tenants sought leave to
contest the application which the Rent Controller being not satisfied
·.~ ::;. the facts disclosed by the tenants in their affidavits denied. The
A

Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlords and ordered eviction
of the tenants. The two tenants challenged the eviction orders by filing
separate revision petitions in the High Court. They also challenged the B
validity of Section 14B of the Act before the High Court by means of two
separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High
Court dismissed the writ petition and the revision petition tiled by one
of the tenants who being aggrieved moved this Court by way of special
Leave Petition Nos. 7146 & 11425 of 1990. In the case of the other
tenant, the High Court following its decision in the first case dismissed
the writ petition filed by him, though the revision petition tiled by him c
was still pending. The tenant challenged the decision of the High Court
by preferring Special Leave Petition No. 7364 of 1990 to this Court.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the tenant's
right to contest the application for eviction on the grounds specified in D 1

Section 14(1)(e) cannot be denied even as against the classified landlords
falling under Sections 14B to 14D. The tenant is entitled to leave to
contest the application by disclosing such facts in the affidavit as would
disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction under Sec-
tion 14(l)(e). This is because of retention of sub-section (5) of Section
25B without any amendment and absence of amendment to Section E
25C(2). It was also contended that sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section
25B are a composite 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.
F
Dismissing the Petitions, the Court,

HELD: 1. Section 14B is a special provision made by the legisla-
ture conferring certain rights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to
recover from their tenants immediate possession of the premises for
their occupation. [369E] G

2.1 The Tenant cannot claim right to contest an application for
eviction on the grounds specified in Section 14(1)(e) against the clas-
sified landlords falling under Sections 14B to 14D. Acceptance of such a
claim would practically obliterate the purpose and object of classifica-
tion of landlords under Sections 14B to 14D who are carved out from H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

the general landlords; indeed it would render the whole exercise of
A creating special classes of landlords with specified rights to recover
immediate ~n of the premises let out by them nugatory. [371H-372C]

2.2 The remedy under Section 14(1)(e) is available only to land-
IOrds in general or the landlords who are not classified landlords under
B Sections 148 to 140. The classified landlords have been conferred with
certain rights which are different from and independent of the rights
under Section 14(1)(e). [372E-F] ·y-----

2.3 Sections 148 to 140 are markedly different from Section
14(1)(e). [375F]
c 3.1 The argument that the absence of amendments to sub-sections
(4) and (5) of Section 258 preserves the tenant's right to contest the
application of even a classified landlord on the grounds specified under
Section 14(1)(e) is not sustainable. Sub-section (4) of Section 258 pro-
vides that the tenant has to obtain leave from the Controller "as here-
D inafter provided", which in the contest means as provided under
sub-section· (5). This is the only sub-section under which the Control-
ler could give leave to the tenant to contest the applicatfon if the
affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the
landlord from obtaining an order for tile recovery of possession of the
premises. [376G, F] ·
E
3.2 · The form specified in the Third Schedule refers only to appli-
cation filed under Section.14(l)(e) or Section 14A. Therefore, when an
application is filed under Section 148, a copy of the application should /

be sent to the tenant by making necessary amendment to the prescribed
form and omitting the other references which are not relevant and the
F summons should state that the application is filed under Section 148
and not under Section 14(l)(e) or 14A. Likewise if the applications are
under Sections 14C to 140, the summons should state accordingly. That
would indicate the scope of defence of the tenant for obtaining leave
referred to in sub-section (5) of Section 258. [377G-378A]

G 3.3 Under sub-section (5), the tenant could contest the applica-
tion by obtaining leave with reference to the particular claim in the
application of the landlord depending upon whether it is under Sections
14A, 148, 140 or 140 or under Section 14(1)(e). [3788]

The tenant cannot be allowed to take up defence under Section
H 14(1)(e) as against an application under Section 148. There cannot be
SURJIT SINGH v. V.O.I. 367

any defence unconnected with or unrelated to the claim or right of the
plaintiff or applicant. That would be against our jurisprudence and A
would be a mechanical interpretation of the enactment defeating its
purpose. The courts have always adopted a purposiye approach to the
interpretation of statutes. [378C-D]

3.4 Section 14B and other allied provisions ought to receive a B
purposeful construction and sub-section (S) 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 14B 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 c
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 D
section 25B which states "special procedure for the disposal of applica-
tions for eviction on the ground of bona fide 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 E
property cannot be evicted by resorting to Sections 14B to 14D. If the
transferee wants to evict the tenant he must take action only under
Section 14(1)(e). Equally Sub-section (7) of Section 14 has no applica-
tion to eviction under Sections 14B to 14D, nor the amended provisions
under Section 25C(2). But that does not mean that the tenants covered
--~ under Sections 14B to 14D are not entitled to any time for surrendering F
~ ·possession 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 and grant a reasonable time to the
tenant. [379E-G)

6. The Controller's power to give leave to contest the application G
filed under Section 14(l)(e) or Section 14A 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 on the ground specified' in the respective
sections. Therefo1·e, if an application is filed under Section 14B or 14C
or 14D, the tenant's right to contest the application is narrowed down H
368 SUPREME COURT Rw(}RTS .[ 1991) 1 s.C.R.

A and is restricted to the parameters of the respective Sections. He cannot ~ ~.
widen the scope of his defence by relying upon Section 14(1)(e). Sub- \.
section (5) of Section 25B is self-contained and Order 37 Rule 3 CPC has
no part to play there. [380B-C]

• Busching Schmitz Private Ltd. v. P. T. Menghani & Anr., [1977) 2
B SCC 835, affirmed and reiterated.

Precision Steel & Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva ~
Niranjan Deva Tayal, [1982] 3 SCC 270, harmonised.

7. The landlord in SLP No. 11425/90 is living in a rented house
and is paying a rent of Rs.2,000 p.m ..and requires the premises for
c himself and the members of his family. The landlord cannot be denied
possession of his own premises under section 14B when he is residing in
a rented premises. [3800-E]

8. The contention that the concerned landlord has taken volun-
D tary retirement long earlier and has become a part of the Society just
like any other landlord and Section 14B was not intended to confer such
landlord the special right to recover immediate possession of the pre-
mises is not maintainable because Section 14B(l) states that the persons
who have already retired may within one year from the date of their
release or retirement from such Armed Forces or, within a period of
E one year from the date of introduction of Section 14B, whichever is
later, apply to the controller. for recovering the immediate possession of
their premises. That is the legislative wisdom. [380F-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
F 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 constriie it in a
harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be
G 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]
H SCR 1287 at 1299, relied upon.
- )---
SURJIT SINGH v. U.0.1. [SHETfY, J,]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 837.
369

A
; 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, 2994 of 1989 and C.R. No. 954
of 1989.
B
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Kapil Sibal, Additional
Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Harish N. Salve, H.K.
Puri, Rajeev Sharma, Ravinder Nath, V.B. Saharya, P.K. Jain, Kri-
shna Moorthy Iyer, Prem Malhotra, A.C. Sehgal, Mrs. Urmila Sirur,

-- R.L. Jain, S.K. Tredal, Ms. Kitty Kumarmanglam, R.P. Dave, Mrs.
Sushma Suri, Ms. M. Biswas and Ashok Mathur for the appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Leave granted.

These appeals from the decision of the Delhi High Court raise • D
the question with regard to landlord's right to evict the tenant under
Section 14-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('The Act') and the
corresponding right of the tenant to resist the eviction proceedings. ·
Section 14-B 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. E

Mahend.ra Raj, the common petitioner in S.L.P. Nos. 7146 and
11425/90, is a tenant occupying the premises ofthe respondent Col.
Ashok Puri. The petitioner in SLP No. 7364 is also a tenant, but
occupying the premises belonging to the respondent Brig. V .N.
Channa. In the action for eviction brought by the respondents on the: F
ground that they need the premises for their occupation, the tenants.
sought leave to contest the application. But the Rent Controller was
not satisfied with the facts disclosed by the tenants in their affidavits
and therefore, denied leave to contest the application for eviction. He
considered the affidavits of the parties and accepted the case of the
landlord and directed that the tenants shall be evicted. In the case of G
Mahend.ra Raj, the Rent Controller made an order dated 2 Septem-
ber, 1989 inter alia, observing that the landlord is living in a rented
house, that he is paying rent of Rs.2,000 p.m., and that he requires the
premises for himself and the members of his family. The eviction order
was challenged by the tenant by means of revision petition before the
Delhi High Court. Almost simultaneously, the tenant also filed a writ H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity
of Section 14-B. On 10 May 1990, the High Court dismissed the revi-
sion as well as the writ petition. Against the judgment of the High
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.
B
The tenar. tin SLP No. 7364 of 1990 has also challenged the order
of eviction in a revision petition before the High Court and we are told ·y-
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 deci- -(
C sion 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 !O premises which are defined by Section 2(i) as meaning, inter r
D alia, any building or part of a building wh,ich 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 tenant. This
provision is, however, subject to the exceptions provided under ,,.>.-.__ ...-
E several clauses of the proviso. Section 14(1)(e) allows a decree for
ejectment to be passed if the Court or Controller is satisfied that the
premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the
landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member
of his family dependent on him, provided that the landlord is the
owner of the premises and he has no other reasonably suitable residen-
F tial acccommodation. The explanation thereunder states that for the
purpose of the clause 14(1)(e) "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 incidentially for commer-
cial or other purposes. Section 14(1)(e) is further restricted by sub-
G sections (6) and (7) of Section 14. Sub-section (6) imposes a restriction
on the landlord, who has acquired any premises by transfer, not to
evict the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) within the period of five years
from the date of acquisition. Sub-section (7) imposes an obligation on )----
the Court where an order for eviction is made on the ground specified
in Section 14(1)(e) to give the tenant the minimum period of six
H months for delivery of possession to the landlord.
- SURJIT SINGH v. U.O.I. [SHETIY, J.)

By Act 18 of 1976 the Legislature has introduced certain changes
371

A
in the Act with effect from 1 December, 1975. Section 14-A was intro-
duced in Chapter ill providing certain rights to a person occupying
residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or ;my
other local authority. If he is required to vacate such residential accom-
modation on the ground that he owns in the Union Territory of Delhi,
a house in his name or in the name of his spouse or dependent B
children, he could recover immediate possession of his premises let out1

by him notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Act or
any other law for the time being in force. Simultaneously, Chapter
III-A was introduced containing Section 25-A to 25-C providing
summary trial of the applications filed landlords classified under
Section 14-A and also applicatior.s filed by any other landlord for bona
fide requirement of their premises under Section 14( 1)(e ).
c

By the Amending Act 57 of 1988 some more classes of landlords
were carved out from the class of general landlords. Section 14-1,3 to
Section 14-D are the provisions. The released or retired persons from
armed forces or the dependents of the member of armed forces who D
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 pre-
mises let out by them if they are needed for their own residence. The E
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 applic~tion F
by a landlord forrecovery 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 proce-
dure specified in this Section. There are however, no corresponding
amendments to sub-sections 2 to 5 of Section 25-B. G

Omission to make corresponding amendments particularly, to
sub-sections 4 & 5 of Section 25 B has given rise to the arguments fqr the
petitioners that the tenant's right to contest the application for eviction
on the grounds specified in Section 14(1)(e) cannot be denied even as
against the classified landlords falling under Sections 14-B to 14~D. It H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

A was also argued that the classified landlords may prove the facts stated
in their respective provisions, but the tenant is entitled to contest the
application by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlords
from obtaining an order of eviction on the grounds specified under
Section 14(1)(e).

B The acceptance of the submissions urged for petitioners would
practically obliterate the purpose and object of classification of land-
lords under Sections 14-B to 14-D who are carved out from the general
y---
landlords. Indeed, it would render the whole exercise of creating spe-
cial classes of landlords with specified rights to recover immediate
possession of the premises let out by them nugatory.
c Before the introduction of Sectioris 14-B to 14-D, Section
l4(1)(e) was the only remedy available to all landlords except those
covered under Section 14-A to recover possession of their premises.
The Controller shall give the tenant leave to contest the applications, if
the tenant in his affidavit discloses such facts as would disentitle the
D landlords from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the
premises on the grounds specified under Section 14(1)(e). It is but
natural when the landlord brings an action for recovery of possession
of the premises covered under Section 14(1)(e), the tenant has the
legitimate right to show that the landlord does not qualify under or
satisfy the requirements of Section 14(1)(e). But today the remedy
E under Section 14(1)(e) is available only to landlords in general or the
landlords who are not classified landlords under Sections 14-B to
14-D. The classified landlords have been conferred with certain rights
which are different from and independent of the rights under Section
14( l)(e). For a proper understanding, we may set out Section 14(1)(e),
side by side with Section 14-B.
F
Section 14(1)(e) Section 14-B

14. Protection of tenant 14. B Right to recover immediate pos-
against eviction. session of premises to accrue to
members of the armed forces etc.
G ( 1) Notwithstanding anyth-
ing to the contrary con- (1) Where the landlord:-
tained in any other law or
contract. no order or de- (a) is a released or retired person from
cree for the recovery of pos- any armed forces and the premises let
session of any premises shall out by him are required for his own
H be made by any Court on residence; or
• SURJIT SINGH v. U.0.1. [SHE1TY, J.] 373

Controller in favour of the
(b) is a dependent of a member of any A
landlord against a tenant:
armed forces who had been killed in
Provided that the Controller action and the premises let out by suc)l
may, on an application made member are required for the residen'f
to him in the prescribed of the family of such member,
manner make an order for the B
_,, recovery of possession of the Such person or, as the case may be, the
premises on one or more of dependent may, within one year from
the following grounds only, the date of his release or retirement
namely- from such armed forces or, as the cas~
'r may be, the date of death of such mem-
xxx xxx xxx ber, or within a period of one year from
the date of commencement of the Deihi c
( e) that the premises let for Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988,
-~ residential purposes are re- whichever is later, apply to the Contrbl-
quired bona fide by the land- ler for recovering the immediate posses-
lord for occupation as a resi- sion of such premises.
dence for himself or for any D
member of his family depen- (2) Where the landlord is a member of
dent on him, if he is the any of the armed forces and has a perjod
owner thereof, or for any per- of less than one year preceding the date
)._,_'""" son for whose benefit the pre- of his retirement and the premises let
mises are held and that the out by him are required for his own
landlord or such person has residence after his retirement, he may, E
no other reasonably suitable at any time, within a period of one y~ar
residential accommodation: before the date of his retirement, ap ,Iy
to the Controller for recovering the
Explanation: Fpr the pur- immediate possession of such premis~s:
, poses of this clause, 'premises
...:7 - ...!\_ (3) Where the landlord referred to i11
...,..._. let for residential purposes' F
include any premises which sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) ha~ let
having been let for use as a out more than one premises, it shall be
residence are, without the con- open to him to make an application
sent of the landlord, used under that sub-section in resr.ect of
incidentally for commercial or only one of the premises chosen by him.
other purposes." I
G
~--..(
Explanation: For the purposes of this
\_ Section 'armed forces' means an armed
force of the Union constituted under: an
Act of Parliament and includes a mem-
ber of the police force constituted uqder
Section 3 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 H
(34 of 1978)."
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

To make the picture complete we may also read sub-sections 6 &
A 7 of Section 14.

"14( 6) Where a landlord has acquired any premises by
transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of
such premises shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground
B specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a
period of five years has elapsed from the date of the
acquisition.

14(7) Where an 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
c entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration
of a period of six months from the date of the order."

Under Section 14(1)(e), the premises let out for residence could
be recovered from the tenant, if the landlord requires the premises
D 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
E 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 such tenant. Sub-section
F (6) of Section 14 provides protection to the tenant from being evicted
from the premises which are transferred to third parties. The transferee
landlord must wait for five years from the date of the transfer or
acquisition before he moves the Court for eviction of the tenant
already in occupation of the premises. Sub-section (7) is again a pro-
tection to the tenant requiring the Court or the Controller to give a
G minimum period of six months to vacate from the date of order of
eviction. This is a complete code governing the dispoi;al of application
filed under Section 14(1)(e).

Under Section 14-B the right to evict the tenant is available to
two categories of persons, (i) The person who has let out the premises
H and, (ii) the dependent of a member of any armed forces who had let
SURJIT SINGH v. U.O.I. [SHETfY, J.] 37,5

out the premises but killed in action. In the former case, the premises
A
must be required for his own residence and in the latter, for the re~i
dence of the family of such member. It II)ay be noted that Section
14( 1)(e) requires that the premises should have been let for residential
P-Urposes but the landlord who seeks eviction need not be the person
who has let out. But Section 14-B narrows down such right. It is He
who has let out alone could evict or the dependent of the person who B
has let out but since killed in action. Secondly, Section 14-B uses the
expression "the premises let out by him" unlike the expression used in
Section 14(1)(e) "the premises let out for residential purposes". The
definition of "premises" under sub-section (2)(i) means "any building
or part of a building which is or intended to be let, separately for use asa
residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose ... ". It is
clear that Section 14-B does not require that the premises should have c
been let out for residential purposes and the purpose of letting ovt
seems to be irrelevant. But he who has let out alone could seek evic-
tion of his tenant or the dependent of :i. member of any armed forces
who had let out but since killed in action. Section 14-B also provid~s
the period of limitation for claiming possession of such premises, but D
no such limitation is provided under Section 14(l)(e). Sub-section (3) of
Section 14-B imposes further restriction on the landlord who is having
more than one premises. Such a landlord cannot ask for possession (j)f
more than one of the premises but he 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(1)(e) provided the E
requirement of the landlord is bona fide and he has no other reason-
ably suitable residential accommodation. Section 14(l)(e) does not
preclude the landlord from seeking eviction of more than one premis~s
provided he establishes the need.

Similar are the pro\'.isions in allied Sections 14-C and 14-D. F

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(1)(e) is the weapon of defence fqr
the tenant even against the applications under Sections 14-B or 14-C or
G

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(1)(e). This con-
tention is sought to be supported first, by the retention of sub-section H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

(5) of Section 25-B without any amendment, second, absence of
A amendment to Section 25(C)(2). It was also contended that sub-
sections 4 & 5 of Section 25-B are a composite scheme and since that
scheme has been left untouched the tenant's right thereunder cannot
be denied.

B The submission if taken to logical conclusion leads to obvious
anomaly which will be indicated presently. But before we do that it
will be necessary to deal with one other contention. Sub-section (1) of
Section 25-B provides that every application for the recovery of posses-
sion of any premises belonging to persons referred to in sµb-section (1)
of Section 25-B shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure
prescribed "in this Section" meaning thereby entire Section 25-B. It
c was also the submission of Dr. Chi tale counsel for one of the tenants in
these cases. Mr. Krishna Moorthy Iyer counsel for the Union of India,
however, argued that the procedure contemplated under sub-section
(5) of Section 25-B need not be followed by the Controller with regard
to applications filed under Sections 14-B to 14-D. According to
D counsel when the tenant is duly served of the application filed under
Sections 14-B, 14-C or 14-D he has no right to contest the application
unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to
contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Con-
troller. It is said that sub-section (4) itself authorises the Controller to
refuse leave if he is satisfied that the grounds set out in the affidavit of
E the tenant would not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction. We do
not think that this contention could be accepted. Indeed, sub-section
( 4) itself provides that the tenant has to obtain leave from the Control-
ler, "as hereinafter provided", which in the context means as provided
under sub-section (5) the meaning and scope of which will be presently
considered. This is the only sub-section under which the Controller
F could give leave to the tenant to contest .the application if 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.

The argument that the absence of amendments to sub-sections 4
and 5 of Section 25-B preserves the tenant's right to contest the appli-
G. cation of even a classified landlord on the grounds specified under
section 14(1)(e) would be basically faulty. If such argument is available
in respect of sub-section,s (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 sub-
section (2) and the form specified in the Third Schedule after the
H introduction of Section 14-B to 14-D. Third Schedule is in these terms:
SURJIT SINGH v. U.0.I. [SHETTY, J.] 377

"The Third Schedule
~

r Form of Summons in a case where recovery of possession
A

of Premises is Prayed for on the ground of bona fide
requirement or under Section 14-A.

To B
(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;
c

You are hereby summoned to appear before the Con-
troller 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, D
the applicant will be entitled at anytime after the expiry of
the said period of fifteen days to obtain an order for your

Ill eviction from the said premises.

Leave to appear and contest the application may be
obtained or an application to the Controller supported by E
an affidavit as if referred to in sub-section (5) of Section
25-B. Given under my hand and seal.

This - - - - - - - day of - - - - - - - - - -
19----
Controller" F

This form specified In the Third Schedule refers only to applica-
tions filed under Section 14(1)(e) or under Section 14A. Does it mean
that the unamended form should be used to issue notice to the tenant
even in case where application for eviction is not made under Section
14(1)(e) or 14-A? Is the tenant entitled to claim that he must receiye G
the notice in the unamended form only, since there is no correspond-
ing amendment to the form after introduction of Sections 14-B to
14-D? A wooden reading may furnish him positive answers, but it
would be ridiculous. When an application is filed under Section 14-B,
a copy of the application should be sent to the tenant by making 1
necessary amendment to the prescribed form and omitting the other H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

references which are not relevant. If the application is filed under
A Section 14-B, the summons should state that the application is filed
under Section 14-B and not under Section 14(1)(e) or 14-A. Likewise
if the applications are under Sections 14-C to 14-D, the summons
should state accordingly. That would indicate the scope of the defence
of the tenant for obtaining leave referred to in sub-section (5) of
B Section 25-B. Under sub-section (5), the tenant could contest the ap-
plication by obtaining leave with reference to the particular claim in
the application of the landlord depending upon whether it is under
Section 14-A, 14-B, 14-C or 14-D or under Section .14(1)(e). The
tenant can not be allowed to take up defence under Section 14(1)(e) as
against an application under Section 14-B. There cannot be any
defence unconnected with or unrelated to the claim or right of the
c plaintiff or applicant. That would be against our jurisprudence. It is
unlikely that the Legislature intended the result for which the counsel
-
'
for the tenant contended. It will be a mechanical interpretation of the
e·nactment defeating its purpose. Such an interpretation has never
found favour with the Courts which have always adopted a purposive
D approach to the interpretation of statutes. Section 14-B and other
allied provisions ought to receive a purposeful construction and sub-
section (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.
E
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,
F 7th Edition, p. 109). Similar are the observations in Hameedia Hard-
ware 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
G 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: Sirajul Haq Khan & Ors. v. The
Sunni Central Board ofWaqf, [1959] SCR 1287 at 1299).

The tenant of course is entitled to raise all relevant contentions
H as against the claim of the classified landlords. The fact that there is no
SURJIT SINGH v. U.0.1. [SHETTY, J.] 379

reference to the word bona fide requirement in sections 14-B to 14-D A
does not absolve the landlord from proving that his requirement is .
bona fide or the tenant from showing that it is not bona fide. In fact 1

every claim for eviction of a tenant must be a bona fide one. There is
also enough indication in support of this construction from the title of
Section 25(B) which states "special procedure for the disposal of appli-
cations for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. B
It was next urged that sub-section (6) of Section 14 is also :
attracted to applications under Section 14-B to 14-D. This contention
overlooks the express wordings of sub-section (6). It refers to premises ·I
acquired by transfer and thereby the transferee becoming the land-
lord. Such a landlord cannot bring an action for eviction of tenant in
possession of the acquired premises within a period of five years from C 1

the date of acquisition. After five years such a landlord can ask for
eviction of the tenant under section 14( 1)( e ). This is indeed, as we said
earlier, a protection to the tenant. The original landlord who cannot·
evict the tenant since he has got many houses under his occupation
cannot use the device by transferring one of the houses to a third party D
who could easily evict such a tenant. The tenant in occupation of the'
transferred premises gets a protection from eviction for a minimum
period of five years. Section 14-B and other allied provisions refer to

....
1

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 14-B tq
14-D. If the transferee wants to evict the tenant of such premises he E
must take action only under Section 14(1)(e). Equally, sub-section (7)
of Section 14 has no application to eviction under Sections 14-B to
14-D. Nor the amended provisions under Section 25(c)(2) would be
attracted since it applies exclusively to tenants of the landlords covered
under Section 14-A. But that does not mean that the tenants covered
under Sections 14-B to 14-D are not entitled to any time for surrender- F
ing possession 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. "' '••
G
There is one other aspect which requires elucidation. In Busc~
ing Schmitz Private Limited v. P. T. Menghani 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. T~e H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

social setting demanding summary proceeding, the nature of the
A
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(1)(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
B from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises
on the ground specified in the respective sections. Needless to state,
therefore, if an application is filed under Section 14-B or 14-C or 14-D,
the tenant's right to contest the application is narrowed down and is
restricted to the parameters of the respective sections. He cannot wi-
den the scope of his defence by relying upon Section 14(1)(e). We find
C nothing contrary to our view in Precision Steel & Engineering Works
and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, [ 1982] 3 SCC 270. Sub-
section (5) of Section 25 is self contained and Order 37 Rule 3 CPC has
no part to play there. We, therefore, reiterate the views expressed in
Basching Schmitz Private Limited case.
The tenant, who is petitioner in SLP No. 11425/90 has suffered
D
an order of eviction which has been confirmed by the High Court in
revision. It is found that his landlord is living in a rented house and is
paying a rent of Rs.2,000 p.m. and he requires the premises for himself
and the members of his family. We concur with the view taken by the
Controller as affirmed by the High Court. The landlord cannot be

·~
denied possession of his own premises under Section 14-B when he is
E
residing in a rented premises. I

Before parting with the case, we have to deal with one other
contention which has been specifically raised by Mr. Sanghi. The
counsel argued that the concerned landlord has taken voluntary retire-
ment long earlier and he has become a part of the society just like any
F other landlord and Section 14-B was not intended to confer such land-
10obrd'. the special right to recover immediate possession of the p( r)emises. ~~
v1ous answer to this contention is found in Section 14-B 1 which
states that the persons who have already retired may within one year
from the date of their release or retirement from such Arm~d Forces
or, within a period of one year from the date of introduction of Section
·G 14-B, whichever is later apply to the Controller for recovering the
immediate possession of their premises. That is the legislative wisdom.

In this view of the matter, the appeals stand disposed without an
order as to costs.

D.R.L. Appeals disposed of.