1989 (5) TMI 324 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to limited companies.
2. Interpretation of the term "residence" in the context of the Act.
3. Whether a company can be considered to "reside" in premises for the purpose of Section 14(1)(h).
4. Impact of the tenant acquiring another residential property on eviction proceedings.
5. Legal implications of agreements between parties in light of statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 14(1)(h) to Limited Companies:
The court examined whether Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies to residential premises let out to a company. It was argued that a company cannot "reside" or acquire "a residence" as it is a juristic entity. However, the court held that the Act applies to all "premises" and does not differentiate between natural persons and companies. The court noted that the concept of occupation by a company through its employees or agents is recognized under Indian Rent Laws, distinguishing it from English law where the term "residence" implies a domestic quality that a company cannot possess.

2. Interpretation of the Term "Residence":
The court clarified that the term "residence" in Section 14(1)(h) should be understood in the context of the Act, which aims to control rents and evictions in Delhi. The term "residence" is used to indicate the kind of premises, distinguishing residential premises from commercial or other purposes. The court rejected the argument that "residence" should be interpreted to mean actual, physical occupation by a natural person.

3. Whether a Company Can "Reside" in Premises:
The court rejected the argument that a company cannot "reside" in premises. It held that for the purposes of the Act, a company can be a tenant and can enjoy possession of residential premises. The court emphasized that the Act protects possession of premises let for residential purposes, irrespective of whether the tenant is a natural person or a company.

4. Impact of Acquiring Another Residential Property:
The court held that Section 14(1)(h) applies if the tenant, whether a company or a natural person, acquires vacant possession of another residential property. The intention of the tenant or the actual use of the acquired property is irrelevant. The court noted that the clause aims to restrict statutory protection to the tenancy of only one residential premises to address the scarcity of residential accommodation in Delhi.

5. Legal Implications of Agreements Between Parties:
The court dismissed the appellant's plea based on an alleged understanding that the landlord would not seek eviction as long as a loan remained unadjusted. The court held that such agreements cannot override the statutory provisions of the Act, specifically Section 14(1), which overrides any contract between the parties.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies to all residential premises, whether let to a company or a natural person. The term "residence" in this context refers to the type of premises and does not necessitate actual, physical occupation by the tenant. The court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal with costs.