SATNAM KAUR Vs. ASHLAR STORES P. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act), seeking to set aside judgment and order dated 17th January, 2000 whereby petitioners- tenants leave to defend application was dismissed by Additional Rent Controller on the ground that it did not disclose any triable issue and an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act in favour of respondent-landlord.

(2.) MR . Suresh C. Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners, submitted that a company cannot file an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act. He submitted that a company can only file an eviction petition under Section 22 of DRC Act for recovery of possession of premises. According to him, present eviction petition was not maintainable as respondent-company had no locus standi or authority to file the same. Mr. Gupta, further submitted that a bare reading of Section 14(1)(e) makes it clear that the said provision for eviction is available only to a natural person.

(3.) Mr. Gupta further submitted that since in the present case there was a composite tenancy for both the residential and commercial shop, proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) were not maintainable. He acknowledged that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, reported in 2008(2) RCR(Civil) 805 : 2008(1) RCR(Rent) 457 : 2008(3) RAJ 95 : (2008)5 SCC 287 has held Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent that it discriminates between premises let out for residential and non-residential purposes. He, however, submitted that the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court was prospective in nature and it did not apply to the present eviction proceedings which had been filed in the year 1997 as the law at that time stipulated that eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) were maintainable only if the premises had been let out for residential purpose and not for a commercial purpose.