1991 (2) TMI 405 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeals uphold landlord's immediate possession right, restrict tenant's contest ability

S. SURJIT SINGH KALRA Versus UOI.

The appeals were disposed of without an order as to costs, upholding the landlord's right to immediate possession under Section 14B and restricting the ... - Issues Involved:1. Tenant's right to contest eviction under Section 14(1)(e) against classified landlords under Sections 14B to 14D.2. Specific rights of classified landlords under Section 14B.3. Interpretation of Section 25B in relation to Sections 14B to 14D.4. Bona fide requirement under Sections 14B to 14D.5. Applicability of sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 14 to Sections 14B to 14D.6. Controller's power to grant leave to contest under Section 25B.7. Legislative intent and interpretation of statutory provisions.Summary:1. Tenant's Right to Contest Eviction:The tenant's right to contest the application for eviction on the grounds specified in Section 14(1)(e) cannot be claimed against classified landlords under Sections 14B to 14D. Acceptance of such a claim would obliterate the purpose and object of classification of landlords under Sections 14B to 14D, rendering the special classes of landlords with specified rights to recover immediate possession nugatory.2. Specific Rights of Classified Landlords:Section 14B is a special provision conferring certain rights to persons belonging to Armed Forces to recover immediate possession of the premises for their occupation. Classified landlords under Sections 14B to 14D have rights independent of those under Section 14(1)(e). The remedy under Section 14(1)(e) is available only to general landlords or those not classified under Sections 14B to 14D.3. Interpretation of Section 25B:The argument that the absence of amendments to sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 25B 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 25B provides that the tenant has to obtain leave from the Controller 'as hereinafter provided' under sub-section (5). The tenant could contest the application by obtaining leave with reference to the particular claim in the application of the landlord depending upon whether it is under Section 14A, 14B, 14C, or 14D, or under Section 14(1)(e).4. Bona Fide Requirement:The tenant is entitled to raise all relevant contentions as against the claim of the classified landlords. The absence of the term 'bona fide requirement' in Sections 14B to 14D does not absolve the landlord from proving that the requirement is bona fide or the tenant from showing that it is not bona fide. Every claim for eviction must be bona fide.5. Applicability of Sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 14:Sub-section (6) of Section 14, which refers to premises acquired by transfer, is not attracted to applications under Sections 14B to 14D. Similarly, sub-section (7) of Section 14 has no application to eviction under Sections 14B to 14D. The tenants covered under Sections 14B to 14D are entitled to reasonable time for surrendering possession, which is left to the discretion of the Controller.6. Controller's Power to Grant Leave to Contest:The Controller's power to give leave to contest the application filed under Section 14(1)(e) or Section 14A is restricted 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. This principle also applies to applications under Sections 14B, 14C, and 14D.7. Legislative Intent and Interpretation:The Court emphasized a purposive approach to the interpretation of statutes, aiming 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 these sections. The Court also highlighted that where necessary, it is permissible to supply words by implication to avoid a construction that deprives existing words of all meanings.Conclusion:The appeals were disposed of without an order as to costs, upholding the landlord's right to immediate possession under Section 14B and restricting the tenant's right to contest based on Section 14(1)(e).