The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “1958 Act”) was enacted to provide a safeguard to many refugees against eviction by the landlord (non-refugees who owned residential property in Delhi or captured upon residential property left by those who went to Pakistan during partition) with the objective to provide time to refugees to settle down. A set of safeguards were also provided for landlords in form of Sections 14, 14A, 14B, 14C & 14D of the 1958 Act.
Later, when it was realised that landlords were getting affected on account of delay in the judicial process in deciding eviction petitions, the legislature introduced Section 25B of the 1958 Act which provided for a summary procedure for eviction petitions preferred Sections 14A, 14B, 14C & 14D &, subsequently, Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act.
Over the period, the residents / landlords of Delhi, with growing need / demand of property, started renting residential property for use for commercial purposes. The landlord, while giving residential property for commercial purposes, to avoid payment of taxes, started taking salaami money from businessmen for renting out their property at meagre monthly rent, for example a sum of Rs 100/- per month, which monthly rent was well within the ambit of the 1958 Act (the 1958 Act holds applicability only if the monthly rental is less than Rs 3500/-). A considerable number of the shops in Connaught Place were rented out under the umbrella of the 1958 Act.
In 2008, the Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India reported as (2008) 5 sCC 287, in appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against non-exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction by the Delhi High Court, dealt with facts wherein the Petitioner had rented out residential premises for commercial purposes and expressed bona fide need for the said residential premises for residential purposes. The Supreme Court of India while dealing with the matter, without discussing the applicability of Section 25B of the 1958 Act, held that Section 14(1)(e) was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and effectively redrafted the provision to entail that Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act will be applicable to commercial premises as well.
Later, the Delhi High Court in plethora of judgments, without adverting to the letter and spirit of the judgment rendered in Satyawati supra, has observed that since Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act applies to commercial premises, the special procedure prescribed for Section 14(1)(e) under Section 25B of the 1958 Act, will also be applicable. However, it has not been discussed in any judgment as to how the color of commercial premises can be given to Section 14(1)(e) for purposes of Section 25B of the 1958 Act when Section 14A, 14B, 14C & 14D of the 1958 Act only & categorically deal with residential premises (reference may be made to Noscitur-a-Sociis).
In my opinion, assuming the judgment rendered in Satyawati supra is good law, the special procedure, as provided under Section 25B of the 1958 Act, should not be applied to eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act when the premises in question is commercial premises.
Treads of Law 