Summary
The Court rejected the challenge that Satyawati Sharma was per incuriam or required reconsideration by a larger Bench. That decision validly removed the discriminatory restriction of bona fide requirement eviction to residential premises under section 14(1)(e). Earlier decisions on inheritance of tenancies did not decide that constitutional issue, and non-discussion of the summary procedure did not undermine the ruling. The individual appeals concerning leave to defend remained for later merits consideration.
Issues
- Whether Satyawati Sharma was per incuriam for overlooking larger-Bench decisions or section 25B.
- Whether other grounds required a larger-Bench reference.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958The discriminatory residential-use restriction had been severed in Satyawati Sharma, permitting bona fide requirement proceedings concerning non-residential premises; the Court declined to reopen that ruling. (¶¶ 9, 11, 30–32, 52–54, 57)
Held
- Gian Devi Anand concerned heritability, not the validity of the residential/non-residential classification for bona fide requirement eviction. Its suggestion of extending that eviction ground supported rather than contradicted Satyawati Sharma. Gauri Shanker likewise addressed inheritance under a different provision. (¶ 24–32)
- Section 25B concerns procedure and did not run counter to the constitutional ruling in Satyawati Sharma. Its non-consideration did not make the decision per incuriam. Alleged hardship from summary procedure was for legislative consideration; refusal of leave in an individual case must be assessed on its own facts. (¶¶ 33–35, 45)
- A classification reasonable when enacted can become arbitrary with changed circumstances. Super Max approved that limited underlying reasoning of Satyawati Sharma, although it did not directly decide section 14(1)(e). (¶ 38–44)
- Satyawati Sharma severed an unconstitutional part of the provision; it was not an exercise of reading down clear statutory language. Decisions restricting reading down therefore did not require reconsideration. (¶ 47–54)
- The unenforced Delhi Rent Act, 1995 also reflected legislative acceptance of bona fide requirement eviction for residential and non-residential premises. Its enactment did not mean it had commenced. (¶¶ 46, 55–57)
- No sufficient ground existed for a larger-Bench reference. The merits of the individual leave-to-defend decisions were expressly left for subsequent consideration. (¶¶ 7, 57–58)
Result
Per incuriam challenge and request for larger-Bench reference rejected. Appeals directed to be listed for consideration on their individual merits; no final disposition of the eviction or leave-to-defend merits at this stage.