http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: EMC STEEL LIMITED, CALCUTTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/02/1991

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. SHETTY, K.J. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 381        1991 SCC  (2) 101  JT 1991 (1)   447        1991 SCALE  (1)206

ACT:      Delhi  Rent Control Act, 1958:  Section  14D-Landlady-A widow’s right to seek eviction of tenant for own residence.

HEADNOTE:      This appeal has been filed against the judgment of  the Delhi  High  Court whereby the High Court  gave  the  widow- landlady  the  benefit  of  section 14-D of the Delhi   Rent Control   Act,   1958   and   accordingly  granted  her  the Possession of the premises in question.      Before this Court it was inter alia contended on behalf of   the  appellant that the relief under section  14-D  was available  only to a landlady who had become a  Widow  after the premises were let out either by herself or her  husband. it  was  further  contended that if  the  benefit  given  by section  14-D was allowed to be availed by all widows,  they may make a business of it.      Dismissing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  (1) The legislature  w anted to give  a  special privilege  to  the landlady who is a  widow  notwithstanding whether  the  Premises  were  let out before  or  after  she became widow. Such conferment of special benefit on a  widow landlady is permissible even under the provisions of Article 15(3)  of the Constitution which is an express exception  to the provisions of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of that Article. A widow is undoubtedly a vulnerable person in our society  and requires special protection. [383H-384B]      (2)  Section 14-D can be availed of by the  widow  only once.  That is a sufficient guarantee against the  abuse  of the  privilege granted by the section. Secondly, she has  to prove her bona fide need for the occupation of the  Premises in  question for her own residence like any other  landlord. Thirdly,  the  provisions of section 19 of  the  Delhi  Rent Control  Act come to play in her case also, when  the  order for  possession on the ground of bona fide  requirement  for occupation as residence is made in her favour. [384C]                                                        382

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Dr.  P.  P. Kapur v. Union of India & Ors.  Delhi  High Court, Civil Writ No. 2686 of 1989 overruled.      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 710  of 1991.      From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  8.5.1990  of  the Delhi  High Court in Civil Writ No. 3257 of 1989.      G.L. Sanghi, Harish N. Salve, H.K. Puri, Rajeev Sharma, Ravinder  Nath, V.B. Saharya, P.K. Jain and  Prem   Malhotra for  the Appellants.      Y.S. Chitale, T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, R.L. Jain,  S.K. Tredal, Kitty  Kumarmanglam,  R.P.  Dave  and  Ashok  Mathur for  the  Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SAWANT, J. SLP (C) No. 12 1 11 of 1990.      Leave granted.      2. This appeal raises the question of the validity  and interpretation  of  Section 14-D of the Delhi  Rent  Control Act,  1958  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  "Act").  In companion  matters,  we  have  already pronounced  upon  the validity  and  interpretation of Section 14-B  of  the  Act. Hence,  it is not necessary to discuss in this judgment  the points which are common to both sections. These points  will be  deemed  to have been concluded by the said decision.      3. The only point which remains to be dealt with and is peculiar  to Section 14-D is whether to claim possession  of such  premises  under the said Section,  the  landlady  must become  a  widow after the premises are let  out  either  by herself or her husband.      4.  Section 14-D of the Act reads as follows:           "14-D.  Right to recover immediate possession   of           premises  to  accrue  to  a  widow-(1)  Where  the           landlord  is a widow and the premises let  out  by           her (2) or by her husband, are required by her for           her own residence, she may apply to the Controller           for  recovering the immediate possession  of  such           premises.                                                        383           (2) Where the landlord referred to in  sub-section           (1)  has let out more than one premises, it  shall           be  open to her to make an application under  that           sub-section  in   respect   of  any  one  of   the           premises chosen by her.      5. The object of the Act, as stated in its preamble, is to  provide for the control of rents and evictions,  and  of rates  of  hotels and lodging houses, and for the  lease  of vacant premises to Government, in certain areas in the Union Territory  of  Delhi. The original Act came  into  force  on February   9,  1959  having  received  the  assent  of   the President   on December  31,  1958.  The  working   of   the Act   disclosed   certain deficiencies,  inconveniences  and hardships  both to  the  landlords  and the  tenants.  Their associations,  therefore,  made  representations.    Various committees  and  commissions  also  recommended   amendments of certain provisions of the Act. Considering the grievances of   the   landlords  and  the  tenants  as  well   as   the recommendations of the  committees/commissions, the Act  was amended in 1988 with the object of (a) rationalising the law by  bringing  out  the balance  between  the   interests  of landlords and tenants, (b) giving a boost to house  building activity  and  maintaining the existing housing stock  in  a reasonable   state   of  repairs,  (c)  reducing  litigation between landlords and tenants and  of ensuring   expeditious disposal   of  disputes  between  them.  By  this  amendment Sections 14-B to 14-D were added.  The  object  of   Section 14-D  is  obvious. It is to assist a  vulnerable  and  needy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

section of the Society to recover possession of the premises as  expeditiously as Possible and without the  usual  trials and tribulations.      6.  We  have  already   held   in   the    accompanying judgment   that  classified  landlords  such  as  the  widow landlady under Section 14-D can apply for possession of  the premises  under  the  respective   provisions  even  if  the premises  are not let for residence. It is not necessary  to repeat  the said discussion in this judgment.  Section  14-D makes  no distinction between  the  landladies  who   become widows   before  and after letting out of the  premises.  It merely  says  that  where the landlady is a  widow  and  the premises are let out by her or by her- husband, are required by  her  for  her  own  residence,  she  may  apply  to  the Controller  for  recovering  the  immediate  possession   of such  premises.  The language of the section in that respect is  very clear. The premises might have been let out by  her as a widow or they might have been let out by her husband or even  by  herself  before  she   had   become   widow.   The legislature  wanted  to  give a  special  privilege  to  the landlady who is a widow notwithstanding whether the premises were   let   out  before  or after she  became  widow.  Such conferment of special benefit on a                                                        384 widow-landlady  is permissible even under the provisions  of Article  15(3)  of  the Constitution  which  is  an  express exception  to the provisions of sub-clauses (1) and  (2)  of that  Article.  It states that nothing in the  said  Article shall  prevent the State from making any  special  provision for women and children.  A widow is undoubtedly a vulnerable person  in our society and requires special protection.   We further  see no merit in the contention that if the  benefit given by Section 14-D is allowed to be availed of by widows, they  may  make a business of it.  There is no  warrant  for such apprehension.  For, in the first instance, the right to recover  possession under Section 14-D can be availed of  by the widow only once. That is a sufficient guarantee  against the   abuse  of  the  privilege  granted  by  the   section. Secondly,  she  has  to prove her bona  fide  need  for  the occupation of the premises in question for her own residence like any other landlord.  Thirdly, the provisions of Section 19  of  the Act come into play in her case  also,  when  the order for possession on the ground of bona fide  requirement for occupation as residence is made in her favour.      In  this  view of the matter, we find no  substance  in this  appeal and the same is dismissed with no order  as  to costs. Writ Petition No. 902 of 1990      7.    In the view that we have taken above, it  is  not necessary  to  admit this writ  petition.   The  authorities under  the  Act while disposing of  the  applications  under Section 14-D will have to abide by this decision and not  by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.  2686 of 1989 in the matter of Dr. P.P. Kapur v. Union of India  & Ors. which was brought to our notice and stands overruled. R.S.S.                                      Appeal dismissed.                                                       385