Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 81 of 1977. (Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated 6 12 1976 of the Delhi High Court in C.R. No. 248/76). F.S. Nariman	 N.S. Sistani and K.C. Dua for the appellant. K.K. Jain	 S.K. 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 created	accelerated remedial procedures were prescribed (section 25A and 25B).This appeal turns on the meaning of section 14A. The purpose of the project has been explained by Chandrachud J. in Sarwan Singh(1): "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 25B(4) 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 25B(8) 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: "14(1) 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 fo.r 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: "25.B. 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 25B(4). 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 25B(4). 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 25B(5) 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 2(i)). 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 436SCI/77 322 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 14(1)(e) 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 141(e). 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 M.R. 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 it.is 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 Duhme:(2) "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. L.R. 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. P.H.P. Appeal dismissed.

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 4(1)(c) 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 s.14A 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 25B(5) 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 2(i) 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. L.R. 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]