Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from an eviction application filed by the appellant-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the respondent-company from premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. The landlord claimed that the premises were required for his own occupation. The tenant-company resisted the application, contending that under clause 5 of the lease deed, the premises were let out for both residential and commercial purposes, thus making the tenancy a composite purpose tenancy outside the purview of residential accommodation, and also challenged the bona fide nature of the landlord's requirement. The Rent Controller rejected the tenant's contentions and allowed the eviction application. The tenant then filed a revisional application before the Delhi High Court, which affirmed the bona fide requirement finding but reversed the Rent Controller's interpretation of clause 5, holding that the words "for the purpose of the Company" indicated commercial use and therefore the premises were let for composite purpose. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court considered the true meaning of clause 5 and the intention of the parties. The Court observed that the intention of parties is to be ascertained from the expressions used, and if difficulty arises, the entire document and attending circumstances must be examined. On a plain reading of clause 5, the Court found that the landlord authorised use only for residential purpose. The words "for the purpose of the Company" were read in conjunction with "residence", meaning that the premises were to be used for residence of Directors, their relatives, and others accommodated for the company's purpose. The Court noted that clauses 11 and 13 of the lease deed supported residential use only, as only air conditioners and cooking ranges were permitted with no office equipment, and the master plan and zonal plan showed the area was exclusively residential. A certificate from the tenant's managing director and a municipal property tax inspection report also confirmed residential user. The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the Rent Controller's decision. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the Rent Controller's eviction order was restored. No order as to costs was made, and the respondent-tenant was directed to file an undertaking within two weeks to deliver vacant possession within six months, i.e., by 31.7.1994.
Headnote
A) Delhi Rent Control - Eviction and Residential Purpose - Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Lease clause authorising use for residence and personal use of Directors and/or their relatives and for purpose of company means residential purpose only; words for purpose of company read with residence, not commercial - The landlord's application for eviction on bona fide requirement was allowed; the High Court's contrary interpretation of clause 5 was reversed. Held that tenant was authorised to use premises only for residential purpose and no other purpose (Paras 4-7). B) Interpretation of Documents - Intention of Parties - Reading Entire Document and Attending Circumstances - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - The court considered clauses 11 and 13 of the lease deed, municipal property tax inspection report, master plan and zonal plan to confirm residential user - Held that intention of parties can be gathered from entire document and surrounding materials when language is not plain (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the premises were let out for residential purpose only or for a composite purpose under clause 5 of the lease deed, and consequently whether the eviction application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was maintainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the order of the Rent Controller allowing eviction. No order as to costs. The respondent-tenant was directed to file an undertaking within two weeks to deliver vacant possession within six months, i.e., by 31.7.1994.
Law Points
- Interpretation of lease deed
- residential purpose of tenancy
- section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act
- 1958
- bona fide requirement
- intention of parties
- reading entire document
- attending circumstances
- composite purpose of tenancy
- landlord-tenant
- eviction
