Appeal No 81 of 1977
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated 6 12 1976 of the Delhi High Court in CR No 24876
FS Nariman NS Sistani and KC Dua for the appellant
KK Jain SK Jain and P Dayal for respondent No 1
314 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA lYER J
Delhi the home of Power and the nidus of paradoxes presents many pathological problems to the students of history social science politics and law often inter acting with each other
We are here concerned with the socio legal malady of accommodation scarcity and the syndrome of long queues of government employees waiting not knowing for how long for allotment of government quar ters at moderate rents and the co existence of several well to do officers enjoying by virtue of their office State allotted residential accommodation while owning their own but letting them out at lucrative rents making sub stantial incomes in the bargain
The law awoke to end this unhappy development and to help the helpless nonallottees get government accommodation
Such is the back drop to section 14A which read along with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 Act LIX of 1958 for short the Act falls for our consideration in the present appeal by special leave
A deeper understanding of the need for the new provi sions just mentioned and the construction that they bear in the context necessitates stating a little more in detail the social setting
The seat of the capital of a vast country with varied activities naturally will be honeycombed with government offices public organisations and growing armies of employees
The higher echelons in public service over the decades have made generous use of the availability of government lands at low prices and of the know how of utilising to their advantage the immense developmental potential in the years ahead if buildings were constructed with foresight
Thus many neatly organised colonies blossomed all around Delhi whose owners were in many in stances officers who had the telescopic faculty to see the prospective spread out of Delhi of the future
Taking time by the forelock they wisely invested money often on soft loans from Government in buildings which secured ambi tious rents when India s headquarters did as it was bound to explosively expand
Most of such officials let their premises for high rents to big businessmen foreign estab lishments company executives and others of their link
Where did the officers themselves reside  The strange advantage of Delhi is that houses with lawns servants  quarters and other amenities built by government long years back are allotted to government servants on rents which are a fraction of what similar accommodation in the private sector may fetch oftentimes
The bigger officials according to the hierarchical system almost perfected into some sort of official castes and sub castes based on status and position in the ministries and not on the heads of their families or office occupied the classified quar ters the official brahmins  of course getting the best
The rents they paid as tenants were negligible compared to the returns they made as landlords
Indeed a sociological research into the whole system may perhaps unravel the semi survival of quasifeudal life styles and the unlovely phenomenon of public servants paying little and collect ing large
The socio economic sequel was worse than this
An astronomical increase in the number of government servants led to a terrific pressure for accommodation because most of them particUlarly at the lesser 315 Krishna lyer J levels had no worthwhile salaries and were priced out of the private sector where rentals had unconscionably rocket ed
This rack renting abuse can be checked in some meas ure by an activist policy of relentlessly enforcing fair rents through penal tags
That of course depends on the will and wisdom of Parliament and Government and the court may not make any comment
Anyway currently controls in this essential area of human accommodation in the capital city of our socialist republic are a statute book virtue
Similarly the suggestion in the course of his submissions made by counsel for the appellants that the true solution is for the State to build more accommoda tion for its servants and not eject tenants like his client is commendable as a text book panacea but a consum mation to be wished  in practical expectations Nevertheless the State took cognizance of the sinister development of several officers owning private residences and occupying government premises and making handsome dividends out of the disparity in rents and ergo a large number of less fortunate officials having to wait in a queue for years hoping against hope that some day some government quarters would be allotted These latter with broken domestic budgets huddle together in small private tenements or even servants  quarters paying rents beyond their means
The politics and economics of scarcity are well known
Out of this distressing situation was born section 14A of the Act
A fasciculus of clauses creating substantive and procedur al provisions to meet the evil and advance the scheme in that behalf came in first by ordinance 24 of 1975 in Decem ber 1975 duly replaced by the Delhi Rent Control Amend ment Act 18 of 1976
The chronic disease needed dras tic treatment and the legislative draftsmen created a chain of stiff provisions
Speaking generally the government after satisfying itself about the official having let out his residential building and occupying officially allotted quarters directed the person to vacate government premises but he had quickly to get back his own house
So a new right section 14A was createdaccelerated remedial procedures were prescribed section 25A and 25BThis appeal turns on the meaning of section 14A The purpose of the project has been explained by Chandrachud J in Sarwan Singh1 The object of Section 14A as shown by its marginal note is to confer a right on certain landlords to recover immediate possession of premises belonging to them and which are in the possession of their tenants
In the sig nificant language of the marginal note such a right is to accrue  to a class of persons
The same concept is pursued and clarified in the body of Section 14A by providing that in the contingencies mentioned in the section a right will accrue to the landlord to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him       Whatever be the merits of that philoso phy the theory is that an allottee from Central Government or a local 1 Sarwan Singh vs Kasturi Lal   272 274
316 authority should not be at the mercy of law s delays while being faced with instant eviction by his landlord save on payment of what in practice is penal rent
Faced with a Hob son s choice to quit the official residence or pay the market rent for it the allottee had in turn to be afforded a quick and expedi tious remedy against his own tenant
With that end in view it was provided that nothing not even the Slum Clearance Act shall stand in the way of the allottee from evicting his tenant by resorting to the summary procedure prescribed by Chapter IIIA
The tenant is even deprived of the elementary right of a defendant to defend a proceeding brought against him save on obtaining leave of the Rent Controller
If the leave is refused by section 25B4 the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord is entitled to an order for eviction
No appeal or second appeal lies against that order
Section 25B8 denies that right and provides instead for a revision to the High Court whose jurisdiction is limit ed to finding out whether the order complained of is according to law
 It is a notorious fact that vesting a right is long years  distance away from getting the remedy thanks to our legal process with its slow motion mood
A jurisprudence of quick acting and comprehensive remedies demanding re structuring and streamlining of the judicative apparatus and imparting operational speed and modernisation of the whole adjectival law and practice is urgent and important an observation we make hoping that Parliament will programme for such a constructive change for the good of the communi ty in consultation with the Court and the Bar
That legal instrumentality alone truly sustains the rule of law which delivers justice with inexpensive colority finality and fullness
The big right remedy gap is the bane of our system
We regard it our duty to mention this dimension of justice and this desideratum of systemic reform so that repetitive litanies to end law s delays may be intelligently heeded by the law makers instead of joining the chorus against the court
Back to the statute
Section 14 A with a non obstante rider follows upon and is partly supplemental to section 14 which primarily governs eviction by landlords of tenants
We may extract a part of section 14 and the whole of section 14A 141 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or contract no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant Provided that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only namely a to d     317 Krishna Iyer J e that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the land lord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him if he is the owner thereof or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accom modation Explanation
For the purposes of this clause premises let for residential pur poses includes
any premises which having been let for use as a residence are without the consent of the landlord used incidental ly for commercial or other purposes   X X X X 14A Right to recover immediate posses sion of premises to accrue to certain persons 1 Where a landlord who being a person in occupation any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority is required by or in pursuance of any general or special order made by that Government or authority to vacate such resi dential accommodation or in default to incur certain obligations on the ground that he owns in the union territory of Delhi a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child there shall accrue on and from the date of such order to such landlord notwith standing anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract whether express or implied custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediately possession of any premises let out by him Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring a right on a landlord owning in the union territory of Delhi two or more dwelling houses whether in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child to recover the possession of more than one dwelling house and it shall be lawful for such landlord to indicate the dwelling house possession of which he intends to recover
2 Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract custom or usage to the contrary where the landlord exercises the right of recovery conferred on him by sub section 1  no compensation shall be payable by him to the tenant or any person claiming through or under him and no claim for such compensation shall be entertained by any court tribunal or other authority Provided that where the landlord had received 318 a any rent in advance from the tenant he shall within a period of ninety days from the date of recovery of possession of the premises by him refund to the tenant such amount as represents the rent payable for the unexpired portion of the contract agreement or lease b any other payment he shall within the period aforesaid refund to the tenant a sum which shall bear the same proportion to the total amount so received as the unexpired portion of the contract or agreement or lease bears to the total period of contract or agreement or lease  Provided further that if any default is made in making any refund as aforesaid the landlord shall be liable to pay simple inter est at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount which he has omitted or failed to refund A summary remedy is provided by section 25B which reads 25B Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement 1 Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause a of the proviso to
sub section 1 of Section 14 or under Section 14A shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section
2 The ContrOller shall issue summons in relation to
every application referred to in sub section 1  in the form specified in the Third Schedule
3 a The Controller shall in acquisi tion to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant also direct the summons to be served by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actu ally and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may if the circumstances of the case so require also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain
b When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is re ceived by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons
319 Krishna Iyer J 4 The tenant on whom the summons is dully served whether in the ordinary way or by registered post in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be committed by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid
5 The Controller shall give to
the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause a of the proviso to sub section 1 of Section 14 or under Sec tion 14A 6 Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable
7 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section 2 of Section 17 the Controller shall while holding an inquiry in a proceed ing to which this Chapter applies follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence
8 No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of posses sion of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section Provided that the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit
9 Where no application has been made to the High Court on revision the Controller may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order XL VIX of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 5 of 1908
10 Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground speci fied in clause e of the proviso to subsec tion 1 of Section 14 or under Section 14A shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by Controllers
 320 The landlord respondent No 1 was a government servant who had let his own building to the appellant tenant a company to carry on business and use part of it for its manager s residence
He himself was occupying residential premises allotted by the Central Government and since he was directed by that Government to vacate on the ground that he had let out residential accommodation  of which he was owner he sought refuge under section 14A
The eviction proceeding was resisted inter alia on the score that the ground did not fail within the sweep of section 14A the premises having been let out for a residential cum commercial pur pose to a joint stock company which was carrying on its business  besides using it for the residence of its Managing Director 
This plea did not cut ice with the Controller who refused leave to contest under section 25B4
of the Act
The refusal would ordinarily have led to an order for eviction but this consequence was intercepted by a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution and a revision to the High Court as provided by the proviso to subs
8 of section 25B of the Act
Dismissal of these proceedings has brought the appellant special leave having been granted to this Court as the last hope
Of course the issue is of some moment legally and otherwise
For while solving the twin problems viz making more accommodation available to government servants in need and ending the vice of officers gaining by letting their own residential houses section 14A creates another viz the ejectment of tenants by summary procedure on a new ground
Maybe as between the two
hardships Parliament has made the choice and the Court implements the law based on the policy decision of the legislature
Mr Nariman sought to expose the weakness of this legislative policy by stating that nothing in section 14A compelled the officer landlord to occupy the premises after evicting the tenant
He could still let it for a higher rent take on lease from the private sector a small house and make a gain flowing from the difference in rents
While we as Judges cannot fail to apply the provision merely because dubious ingenuities can circumvent it we will later interpret the section eliminating the possible evil pointed out
The short but insistent submission made by the counsel for the appellant was that the Controller could not shut him out from being heard as he did if only a triable issue emerged from the affidavit in opposition filed under section 25B4
Such an issue in fact more than one was obviously present here urged counsel
But we make it plain even at this stage that it is fallacious to approximate as was sought to be done section 25B5 with Order 37 r 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The social setting demanding summary proceeding the nature of the subject matter and above all the legis lative diction which has been deliberately designed differ in the two provisions
The legal ambit and judicial dis cretion are wider in the latter while in the former with which we are concerned the scope for opening the door to defence is narrowed down by the strict words used
The Controller s power to give leave to contest is cribbed by the condition that the affidavit filed by the tenant dis closes such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of posession of the premises on the ground specified in cl
e of the proviso to sub section
1 of section 14 321 Krishna lyer J or under section 14A Disclosure of facts which disentitle recovery of possession is a sine qua non for grant of leave
Are there facts disentitling the invocation of section 14A  The thrust of Shri Nariman s contention is that section 14A does not apply at all as a matter of construction of the expression residential premises 
This is net something factual but essentially legal and perhaps the question deserves our decision
For if we explain as declaratory of the law what the true scope of section 14A is vis a vis the premises involved the Controller may then proceed on that footing and decide whether there is any fact disclosed which disentitles eviction
Let us break down section 14A to the basic components crea tive of the new right to recover possession of premises let to a tenant
Premises  by definition covers any building or part of a building let for use residential commercial or other section 2i
We confine ourselves to the considera tions relevant to our case
To attract section 14A the landlord must be in occupation of residential premises  allotted to him by the Central Government
He must be required by order of that Government to vacate such residential accommoda tion 
These are fulfilled here
The ground for such order to vacate must be that he owns in the Union Territory of Delhi a residential accommodation 
If so there accures to such landlord the right to recover immediately posses sion of any premises let out by him  emphasis added
The bone of contention between the parties is as to whether the premises let out are residential accommoda tion 
It may be a pursuit of subtle nicety to chase the reason for using different expressions like residential premises  and residential accommodation  in the same sec tion
If at all accommodation  is ampler than premises 
What is residential accommodation  If the building in dispute answers that description the tenant must submit to eviction
So this is the key question
Admittedly the building was let out for commercial purpose also
Is the purpose of the lease decisive of the character of the accommodation  For a long time it was used as an office of the tenant s business the manager also residing in a part thereof
Does user clinch the issue  At present the main use to which the building is put is as residence of the manager
The Delhi Development Authority granted the land to the government servant respondent for construction of a residen tial building although he later let it out for non residen tial use apparently for getting large rents silencing his compunction about the basis on which he secured the allot ment of the land at low cost
But can the court conclude from the object of the land assignment whether the building later put up is residential or not  Marginal relevance there may be in these diverse factors telling value they do not possess Law being 6 436SCI77 322 pragmatic responds to the purpose for which it is made cognises the current capabilities of technology and life style of the community and flexibly fulfils the normative role taking the conspectus of circumstances in the given case and the nature of the problem to solve which the stat ute was made
LegiSlative futility is to be ruled out so long as interpretative possibility permits
Residentiality depends for its sense on the context and purpose of the statute and the project promoted
Guided by this project oriented approach we reject the rival extreme position s urged before us by Shri Nariman and Shri Jain
Residential premises are not only these which are let out for residential purposes as the appellant would have it
Nor do they cover all kinds of structures where humans may manage to dwell
If a beautiful bungalow were let out to a businessman to run a show room or to a meditation group or music society for meditational or musical uses it re mains none the less a residential accommodation
Otherwise premises may one day be residential another day commercial and on yet a later day religious
Use or purpose of the letting is no conclusive test
Likewise the fact that many poor persons may sleep under bridges or live in large hume pipes or crawl into verandahs of shops and bazars cannot make them residential premises
That is a case of reductio ad absurdum
Engineering skills and architectural designing have advanced far enough to make multi purpose edifices and by minor adaptations make a building serve a residential commercial or other use
The art of building is no longer  rigid and the character of a house is not an either or 
It can be both as needs demand
It is so common to see a rich home turned into a business house a dormitory into a factory
Many small scale industries are run in former living quarters
To petrify engineering concepts is to betray the law s purpose
Whatever is suitable or adaptable for residential uses even by making some changes can be designated residential premises 
And once it is residen tial  in the liberal sense section 14A stands attracted
Dic tionary meaning commonsense understanding and architectur al engineering concur in the correctness of this construc tion
What falls outside the ambit of residential purposes  may be limited but not non existent
A shop in Connaught Place a factory in an area prescribed by any municipal regulation for residential use or any structure too patently non residential such as a hothouse for botanical purposes or a bath and toilette or teashop by the road margin are obvi ous instances
We may visualise other cases but that is not our purpose here
The house we are considering was built on land given for constructing a residence is being used even now for residence is suitable otherwise for residence and is being credibly demanded for the respondent s residence
Residential suitability being the basic consideration this building fills the bill
Nothing said in the affidavit in opposition puts it out of the pale of residential accommoda tion
A building which reasonably accommodates a residen 323 Krishna Iyer J tial user is a residential accommodation nothing less nothing else
The circumstances of the landlord are not altogether out of place in reaching a right judgment
The purpose test  will enable officers who own houses to defeat the government by pleading that they do not own residential premises  because the lease is for commercial use built though it was and stumble though it is for residence
Similarly the possibility test  may make nonsense of the provision
The contrast in the phraseology between section 141e and section 14A strengthens our inference
The legislature has in the former provision used the expression premises let for residential purposes  thus investing the purpose of the lease with special signifi cance
The deliberate omission of such words in section 14A and instead the use of the flexible but potentially more com prehensive though cryptic expression residential accom modation  cannot be dismissed as accidental
Shri Nariman argued that the court must have the power to consider whether the order of the government stating that the government servant s building is residential is valid or not
We do not deny that in the last resort it is within the Court s province to do so
But it must give due not deadly weight to the decision of the government that the premises owned by its officer is residential
Perversity and mala fides will of course invalidate government orders here as elsewhere
They are the exceptions but as a prac tical guideline the government s order may be taken as correct
For after all while courts must finally pro nounce others familiar with the work a day world and en quire before passing orders are not too inexpert or incompe tent to be brushed aside
The power to render binding decisions vests in the judicial process not because it is infallible or occult but because it is habitually independ ent and professionally trained to consider contending view points aided by counsel for a adversaries
The humility that makes for wisdom behoves the judge to show respect for not obedience to the view of an administrative agency
There remains the conundrum raised by Shri Nariman
Supposing the landlord after exploiting the easy process of section 14A re lets the premises for a higher rent the social goal boomerangs because the tenant is ejected and the landlord does not occupy as he would have been bound to do if he had sought eviction for bona fide occupation under section 141e
Section 19 obligates the landlord in this behalf
In literal terms that section does not apply to eviction obtained under section 14A
But the scheme of that section definitely contemplates a specific representation by the petitioner landlord to the Controller that because he has been ordered to vacate the premises where he is residing therefore he requires immediate possession for his occupa tion
The non obstante clause the vesting of a right to immediate recovery the creation of a summary process under section 25B and the package of connected provisions all empha size that the amendments have to be viewed as a whole that the Court cannot be fooled and the statute mocked at
The law as Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist said
is a ass a idiot  but today the socio economic project cannot be frustrated by legalistics
Underlying the whole legislative plan and provision is the fundamental anxiety to recover for the officer s occupation his own premises
Once we grasp this cardinal point the 324 officer s application for eviction under section 14A can be entertained only on his averment that he having been asked to vacate must get into possession of his own
For in stance if he has a vacant house of his own and on getting an order to vacate he moves into his vacant house he cannot thereafter demand recovery under section 14A
The cause of action is not only the government order to vacate but his consequential urgency to recover his own building
That is the rationale legis
To interpret otherwise is to vindicate Mr Bumble  We hold that Shri Nariman s apprehen sion is unfounded and section 14A is largely a rider to s
14 and the condition indicated in section 19 must mutatis mutandis bind the landlord
Parliament cannot be assumed not to intend the obviouS or to intend the ludicrous
Literality not right where absurdity is the result
The same result is reached by reading into every appli cation for eviction by a landlord a necessarily implied representation to court that for the reason of his being directed to get out he must be given possession of his own residence for his own occupation with the aid of the judi cial process
If the finale is reached and possession obtained the Court will not allow a party to reduce its process to a mere make 
believe or a clever parody break ing faith with the judicial process itself
Such paths can be interdicted by the use of the inherent power of the court
The re letting to someone else or non occupation even after a reasonable time or without reasonable cause will be regarded as an abuse of the process of the court and at the instance of the affected tenant or otherwise the eviction order cancelled and possession restored
We affirm this legal position lest overly cute but qualmless landlords should hopefully hoax the court and reduce its decree to a joke
Every tribunal has the inherent power to prevent its machinery from being made a sham thereby run ning down the rule of law itself as an object of public ridicule
It will and must prove any strategem self defeat ing if a party indulges in making the law the laughing stock for the court will call him to order
We are not adventuring into any innovation of legal principle in inhibiting unconscionability in the enforce ment of rights
Lord Denning MR said What is the justification for the courts in this or any other case departing from the ordinary meaning of words  If you examine all the cases you will I think find that at bottom itis because the clause relieving a man from his own negligence is unreasonable or is being applied unreasonably in the cir cumstances of the particular case
The judges have then time after time sanctioned a departure from the ordinary meaning 
Are the courts then powerless  Are they to permit the party to enforce his unreasonable clause even when it is unconscionable or applied so unreasonably as to be unconscion able  When it gets to this point I would say as I said many years ago There is the vigilance of the common law which while allowing freedom of contract watches to see that it is not abused  X X X X 325 Krishna Iyer J He continued I know that the judges hitherto have never confessed openly to the test of reasona bleness
But it has been the driving force behind many of the decisions
1 We agree that in the words of Lord Erakine there is no branch of the jurisdiction of this court more delicate than that which goes to restrain the exercise of a legal right 
But the principle of unconscionability clothes the court with the power to prevent its proc ess being rendered a parody
The justice of the law steps in end the area of eviction of a tenant by a landlord the tribunal cannot tolerate double dealing or thwarting the real in tendment of the statute
The same conclusion can be reached through another line of reasoning expressed by Justice Jackson of the Supreme Court of the United States in D  Cench Duhme2 If the judicial power is helpless to protect a legislative program from schemes for easy avoidance then indeed it has become a handy implement of high finance 
Once the purpose or effect of the scheme is clear once the legislative policy is plain we would indeed forsake a great tradition to any we were helpless to fashion the instruments for appropriate relief
 The doctrine that the judicial machinery while enforc ing the law shall forbid its being misused is another dimension of two deeply rooted but inter connected maxims
Actus curiae neminem gravabit An act of the court shall prejudice no man Jenk
118 and Actus legis est damnosus The act of the law is hurtful to no one 2 Inst 287 Actus legis nemini facit in juriam The act of the law does injury to no one 5 Coke
This principle is fundamental to any system of justice and applies to our jurisprudence
An Afterword The possibility of the power of government to issue orders to vacate being used discriminatorily should be carefully avoided
If exceptions are made in the case of big officers naturally the middling and the lesser minions of government may have a grievance
It may perhaps be proper if government when allotting good premises for high offi cers who make from their own houses large returns by way of rentals makes them pay into government coffers some equita ble part of the gain so made giving consideration to cir cumstances like loans investments and the like
This again is a matter falling with 1 39 Mod
LR 379 1976 2 Referred to in  at 366 67 Quoted in Univ
of Pennsylvania Law Review VoL 117 1968 p 1 63
326 in the province of the sense of justice of the Administra tion
But we mention it only to save the legislation from the aspersion of invidiousness in the exercise of the power
In the view we have already taken it follows that the appeal must be dismissed and we hereby do so but the par ties in the circumstances will bear their own costs throughout
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent No 1 landlord let out his building to the appellant a company to carry on business and use part of it for its manager s residence
The landlord was occupying residential premises allotted by the Central Government
After the amendment of the
Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 by Ordinance 24 of 1975 which was later replaced by Delhi Rent Control Amendment Act 1976 section 14A and 25B were added to the Statute
Section 14 permits a landlord to evict the tenant if the premises let for residential pur pose are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him
Section 14A provides that where a landlord is in occupation of any residential accommodation allotted to him by the Central Government or any local authority and if he is required by order made by that Gov ernment or authority to vacate such residential accommoda tion on the ground that he owns in the Union Territory of Delhi a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child there shall accrue to the landlord a right to recover immediately pos session of any premises let out by him
The said provision has been given effect notwithstanding anything to the con trary in the Delhi Rent Act or any other law or the custom or usage
Section 25B provides for a summary remedy
It provides that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord for obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in section 41c or 14A The re spondent was directed by the Government to vacate the Gov ernment accommodation on the ground that he had let out residential accommodation of which he was owner
The respondent No 1 accordingly filed eviction proceedings against the appellant claiming possession under Section 14A The appellant contended before the Rent Controller that the ground did not fail within the sweep of section 14A since the premises were let out for residential rum com mercial purposes to a joint Stock Company which was carry ing on business besides using for the residence of its Managing Director
This plea did not cut ice with the Con troller who refused leave to contest
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court under Art 226 of the Consti tution which was dismissed
In appeal by special leave the appellant contended that 1
Nothing in s14A compels the landlord to occupy the premises after evicting the tenant
He could still let it for a higher rent take on lease from the private sector a small house and make a gain from the difference flowing in rent
The Controller could not shut him out from being heard if a triable issue emerged from the affidavit in opposition
In the present case such issues were present and therefore the Rent Controller was not justi fied in refusing leave to contest
Section 14A does not apply in the present case since the premises were not residential premises as they were let out both for commercial and residential purposes
313 Krishna lyer J Dismissing the appeal HELD 1 It is fallacious to approximate section 25B5 with Order 37 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The social setting demanding summary proceeding the nature
of the subject matter and above all the legislative diction which has been deliberately designed differ in the two provisions
Disclosure of facts which disentitle recovery of possession is a sine qua non for grant of leave
320 F A 321A 2 The definition of premises in section 2i covers any building or part of the building leased for use resi dential commercial or other
To attract section 14A the landlord must be in occupation of residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government
He must be required by order of that Government to vacate his residen tial accommodation
The Delhi Development Authority granted the land to respondent No 1 for construction of a residen tial building although it was let out for commercial pur pose
Residential premises are not only plots which are let out for residential purposes nor do all kinds of structures where humans may manage to
dwell are residential
Use or purpose of the letting is no conclusive test
Whatever is suitable or adaptable for residential use even by making some changes cart be designated residential premises
Once it is residential in the liberal sense section 14A strands attracted
In the present case the house was built on land given for constructing a residence is being used even now for residence is suitable otherwise for residence and is being credibly demanded for the respondent s residence
Residential suitability being the basic consideration the building is residential
The purpose test  will enable officers who own houses to defeat the statute that they do not own residential premises though it was suitably built for residence
The scheme of section 14A definitely contem plates a specific representation from landlord to the Controller that because he has been ordered to vacate the premises where he is residing he requires immediate posses sion for his occupation
It s non obstante clause the vesting of a right to immediate recovery the creation of a summary process and the package of connected provisions all emphasize that the amendments have to be viewed as a whole that the court cannot be fooled and the statute mocked at
The cause of action is not only the Government orders to vacate but consequential urgency to recover his own build ing
Parliament cannot be
assumed not to intend the obvi ous or to
intend the ludicrous
Literality is not right where obscurity is the result
321 C D G H 322 C D 323 A B G H Gillespie Brothers  Co Ltd vs Roy Bowles Transport Ltd quoted in 39 MUd
LR 379 1976 and Anderson vs Abbott  at 366 67 quoted in Univ
of Pennsylvenia Law Review Vol 117 1968 p 1 63 quoted with approval
3 Judicial machinery while enforcing the law shall forbid its being misused
325 E 4 The possibility of the power of Government to issue orders to vacate being used discriminately should be care fully avoided
If exceptions are made in the case of big officers naturally the
middling and the lesser minions of Government may have a grievance
It may  perhaps be proper for Government when allotting good premises for high offi cers who made from their own houses large returns to pay into the Government coffers some equitable part of the gain so made giving consideration to circumstances like loans investment and the like
325 G H