(Jagdish Singh Khehar and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Jag Mohini Kaur ____________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Tilak Raj and Others ____________________________ Respondent(s).
(For directions and office report)
I.A. 1/2015 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31687/2014+, decided on July 20, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. On 01.12.20141, this Court passed the following order:
“Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents had sought eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is submitted that eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can be sought only with reference to a residential premises. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the application for eviction filed by the respondents (a copy whereof has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-1) depicting the acknowledged factual position at the hands of the respondents, namely, that the premises of which eviction is sought is commercial in nature.
Issue notice.
Eviction of the petitioner shall remain stayed, in the meantime.”
2. The submission noticed in the above order is clearly contrary to the declared position of law in the judgment rendered by this Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India2 wherein in paragraph 42, it has been held as under:
“However, the aforesaid declaration should not be misunderstood as total striking down of Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act because it is neither the pleaded case of the parties nor the learned counsel argued that Section 14(1)(e) is unconstitutional in its entirety and we feel that ends of justice will be met by striking down the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e) so that the remaining part thereof may read as under :—
“that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord 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 accommodation.”
While adopting this course, we have kept in view well recognized rule that if the offending portion of a statute can be severed without doing violence to the remaining part thereof, then such a course is permissible – R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India3.”
3. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner misled this Court while obtaining the above order, including the order of stay. Keeping in view the above, we are satisfied that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed with an exemplary cost. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with cost, which is quantified as Rs. 1,00,000/-. The aforesaid cost shall be paid by the petitioner, to respondent No. 1, within two weeks from today, along with the vacant possession of the premises in question.
4. As a sequel to dismissal of the special leave petition, I.A. No. 1 of 2015 is also dismissed.
———
+ Arising from Judgment and Order in Jag Mohini Kaur v. Tilak Raj, 2014 SCC OnLine Del ## (Delhi High Court, RCR No. 362 of 2012, dt. 15-10-2014)
1 Jag Mohini Kaur v. Tilak Raj, SLP (C) No. 31687 of 2014, order dated 1-12-2014 (SC)
2 (2008) 5 SCC 287
3 AIR 1957 SC 628
