PADAM NABH & SONS versus YASH PAL

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

(1) Where the landlord ­ year prior to or within one year

(a) is a released or retired person after the date of his retirement or from any armed forces and the after his retirement but within one premises let out by him are year of the date of commencement required for his own residence; of the East Punjab Urban Rent or Restriction (Amendment) Act,

(b) is a dependent of a member of 1985, whichever is later, applies to any armed forces who had the Controller alongwith a been killed in action and the certificate from the authority premises let out by such member competent to remove him from are required for the service indicating the date of his residence of the family of such retirement and his affidavit to the member, such person or, as the effect that he does not own and case may be, the dependent may, possess any other suitable within one year from the date of accommodation in the local area in his release or retirement from which he intends to reside to such armed forces or, as the recover possession of his case may be, the date of death of residential building or scheduled such member, or within a period building, as the case may be, for of one year from the date of his own occupation, there shall commencement of the Delhi Rent accrue, on and from the date of Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, such application to such specified whichever is later, apply to the landlord, notwithstanding anything Controller for recovering the contained elsewhere in this Act or immediate possession of such in any other law for the time being premises. in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or

(2) Where the landlord is a usage to the contrary, a right to member of any of the armed recover immediately the possession forces and has a period of less of such residential building or than one year preceding the date scheduled building or any part or of his retirement and the parts of such building if it is let out premises let out by him are in part or parts: required for his own residence after his retirement, he may, at Provided that in case of death of any time, within a period of one the specified landlord, the widow or year before the date of his widower of such specified landlord retirement, apply to the and in the case of death of such Controller for recovering the widow or widower, a child or a immediate possession of such grandchild or a widowed daughter­ premises. in­law who was dependent upon

(3) Where the landlord referred to such specified landlord at the time in sub­section (1) or sub­ section of his death shall be entitled to

(2) has let out more than one make an application under this premises, it shall be open to him section to the Controller­ to make an application under that sub­section in respect of (a) In the case of death of such only one of the premises chosen specified landlord, before the by him. commencement of the East Explanation ­ For the purposes Punjab Urban Rent Restriction of this section, "armed forces" (Amendment) Act, 1985, within means an armed force of the one year of such commencement; Union constituted under an Act (b) In the case of death of such of Parliament and includes a specified landlord after such member of the police force commencement, but before the constituted under Section 3 of date of his retirement, within one the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (34 of year of the date of his death; 1978). (c) In the case of death of such specified landlord after such 14­C. Right to recover immediate commencement and the date of possession of premises to accrue to Central Government and Delhi his retirement within one year of Administration employees­ (1) the date of such retirement: Where the landlord is a retired and on the date of such employee of the Central application the right to recover Government or of the Delhi the possession of the residential Administration, and the building or scheduled building, as premises let out by him are the case may be, which belonged required for his own residence, to such specified landlord at the such employee may, within one time of his death shall accrue to year from the date of his the applicant: retirement or within a period of one year from the date of Provided further that nothing in commencement of the Delhi Rent this section shall be so construed Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, as conferring a right, on any whichever is later, apply to the person to recover possession of Controller for recovering the more than one residential or immediate possession of such scheduled building inclusive of premises. any part or any parts thereof if it

(2) Where the landlord is an is let out in part or parts: employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Provided further that the Administration and has a period Controller may give the tenant a of less than one year preceding reasonable period for putting the the date of his retirement and specified landlord or, as the case the premises let out by him are may be , the widow, widower, required by him for his own child, grandchild or widowed residence after his retirement, he daughter­in­law in possession of may, at any time, within a period the residential building or of one year before the date of his scheduled building, as the case retirement, apply to the may be, and may extend such Controller for recovering the time so as not to exceed three immediate possession of such months in the aggregate. premises. Explanation­ For the purpose

(3) Where the landlord referred to in sub­section (1) or sub­section of this section, the expression

(2) has let out more than one “retirement” means termination of premises, it shall be open to him service of a specified landlord to make an application under otherwise than by resignation. that sub­section in respect of only one of the premises chosen 13­B. Right to recover immediate by him. possession of residential building 14­D. Right to recover immediate or scheduled building and/or possession of premises to accrue non­residential building to accrue to a widow. ­ (1) Where the to non­resident Indian. ­ (1) landlord is a widow and the Where an owner is a non­resident premises let out by her, or by her Indian and returns to India and husband are required by her for the residential building or sched­ her own residence, she may uled building and/or non­residen­ apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate tial building, as the case may be, possession of such premises. let out by him or her, is required for his or her use, or for the use of

(2) Where the landlord referred to in sub­section (1) has let out anyone ordinarily living with or more than one premises, it shall dependent on him or her, he or be open to her to make an she, may apply to the Controller application under that sub­ for immediate possession of such section in respect of any one of building or buildings, as the case the premises chosen by her. may be : 14 (6) Where a landlord has Provided that a right to apply acquired any premises by in respect of such a building un­ transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such der this section, shall be available premises shall lie under sub­ only after a period of five years section (1), on the ground from the date of becoming the specified in clause (e) of the owner of such a building and proviso thereto, unless a period of shall be available only once dur­ five years have elapsed from the ing the lifetime of such an owner. date of the acquisition."

(2) Where the owner referred to in sub­section (1) has let out more than one residential building or scheduled building and/or non­ residential building, it shall be open to him or her to make an ap­ plication under that sub­section in respect of only one residential building or one scheduled build­ ing and/or one non­residential building, each chosen by him or her.

(3) Where an owner recovers possession of a building under this section, he or she shall not transfer it through sale or any other means or let it out before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of taking possession of the said building, failing which, the evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order direct­ ing that he shall be restored the possession of the said building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.”

“Specifically the issue is in relation to the meaning of the words" let out". Do they mean the creation of a fresh tenancy or do they refer to an existing tenancy? If the former, the section can be resorted to only by the creator of the tenancy (widow or her late husband). If it is the latter, even a transferee (widow) is entitled to invoke it. We find that there is some conflict in the views taken by two Benches of three learned Judges each. An observation in the judgment in Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India suggests that the words "let out" refer only to the creation of a tenancy. On the other hand, the judgment in Kanta Goel v. B. P. Pathak interprets the words "let out" in the context of Section 14­D of the Act to mean that even a transferee landlord can invoke the provision. It is, in these circumstances, necessary that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of five learned Judges. It shall be so placed after obtaining the directions of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India in this regard.”

“28. The observations in the aforesaid judgments no doubt support the case of the appellant. This Court did clearly lay down that the expression, "the premises let out by him" in Section 14­B of the Act did mean that it is he who has let out alone could evict, and in case the landlord had been killed in action his dependent could seek immediate eviction of the premises let out by such person. It is noticeable that the expression, "premises let out by him" is used in Sections 14­B and14­C, but the expression, in Section 14­D is "premises let out by her, or by her husband." Section 14­B contemplates two situations, firstly, where the landlord is a released or retired person from any armed forces and secondly, where he was killed in action. In case the landlord was killed in action a right has been given to his dependant within one year of the death of the landlord, to apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of the premises. Section 14C confers a right on a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration who requires the premises let out by him for his own residence. Section 14­D confers a right on a widow of the landlord to seek immediate possession of the premises let out "by her, or by her husband". The scheme of these Sections appears to be that where the landlord is alive and the premises have been let out by him, only he can make an application for immediate possession of the premises for his own use. Only in the case of his death his dependant under Section 14­A, and his widow under Section 14­D can seek immediate possession of the premises. The use of the expression, "let out by him" in Sections 14­B and 14­C and the expression, "let out by her, or by her husband" in Section 14­D have significance. If it was unnecessary in the scheme of these Sections as to who had actually let out the premises, the legislature would not have used the term "let out by him" or "let out by her, or by her husband". In interpreting a provision one cannot assume that the words employed by the legislature are redundant. Section 14­D gives a right to file an application under that provision only to a widow who had let out the premises or whose husband had let out the premises. Consequently, if the premises had been let out by someone else, Section 14­D will not apply. As pointed out in Surjit Singh Kalra (supra) the expression used in Section 14­B is "the premises let out by him", unlike the expression used in Section 14 (1)(e) where the legislature employed the expression "the premises let out for residential purposes". Thus in the case of a landlord belonging to the general category it was immaterial whether the premises was let out by him or by someone else, as long as he was the landlord of the premises at the time of making an application seeking eviction of the tenant. But the expression, "let out by her, or by her husband" conveys a different meaning altogether. The widow's right to recover immediate possession of the premises arises only if the premises were let out by her or by her husband, and not by anyone else. It appears to us that the legislature has purposely employed a different expression in Section 14­D as also in Section 14­ B and 14­C. We are here concerned with an application filed under Section 14­D which specifies in clear terms that a widow can invoke the provisions only if she has let out the premises, or if her husband had let out the premises. If, as observed in Kanta Goel (supra), the expression, "the premises let out by him" has been used only to convey the idea that the premises must be owned by him directly and the lease must be under him directly, and not that he had himself let out the premises, the legislature would not have then used the expression "let out by her, or by her husband." The very fact that the Section specifies that the premises must be one which was let out by the widow or by her husband implies that the provision would not apply to a premises let out by any other person. If the intention of the legislature was to confer an unlimited right on a widow landlord, the use of the words "the premises let out by her, or by her husband" would have been unnecessary and the Section would have simply read as follows:­ "Where the landlord is a widow and the premises are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises." By expressly providing that the premises must be one let out by her or by her husband, the legislature has clearly excluded from the purview of the said provision "premises let out by any other person" even if in course of time the widow may have become its landlord. We are obliged to read the provision as it is, and cannot give it a meaning by deleting an expression expressly employed by the legislature. The expression, "let out by her, or by her husband" is not an expression which permits of any ambiguity. We must, therefore, give it its normal meaning. So understood the conclusion is inescapable that the legislature intent was only to confer a special right on a limited class of widows viz. the widow who let the premises or whose husband had let the premises before his death, and which premises the widow requires for her own use. “32. There is another aspect of the matter. Section 14­D uses the expression, "premises let out by her, or by her husband" which are required by the widow for her own residence. She may apply to the Rent Controller for recovering the immediate possession of "such premises". "Such premises" obviously is relatable to the premises let out her or by her husband. It cannot take within its ambit any other premises which may have been let out by any other person. We, therefore, find substance in the submission urged on behalf of the appellant that Section 14­D benefits only a class of widows viz. a widow who or whose husband had let out the premises. If the intention was to benefit all widows, the section would have provided that a widow is entitled to obtain immediate possession of the premises owned by her and the expressions, "let out by her or by her husband" and "such premises" in Section 14­D would be redundant. The High Court, therefore, fell in error in thinking that only two conditions were required to be fulfilled for the application of Section 14­D namely, the landlady is a widow, and the premises are required by her for her residence. In addition to these two requirements, in our view, Section 14­D insists that the premises must be one let out by her or by her husband. A widow or her late husband who acquired a tenanted premises by sale or transfer cannot invoke the provisions of Section 14D to evict a preexisting tenant.”

(1) cannot be construed as imposing a condition additional to the one prescribed in Sub­Section (1). The correct method of interpreting Sub­ section (1) of Section 13­B and the proviso thereunder is to hold that irrespective of the person by whom the tenant was inducted, a NRI owner will have to wait for a period of five years from the date of becoming the owner, to be entitled to invoke Section 13­B.