NDLI: Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 Provision under Principle of per incuriam bonafide requirement eviction of residential premises s.14(1)(e)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Delhi Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: s.14(1)(e) – Provision under – Providing for eviction of residential premises on the ground of bonafide requirement – Held violative of Art.14 of the Constitution in Satyawati Sharma case making the provision applicable also to non-residential premises – In the present case application u/s.14(1)(e) filed seeking eviction of non-residential premises – Rent Controller followed summary procedure – Procedure when challenged, was confirmed by High Court – In appeal to Supreme Court, tenant sought reference of Satyawati Sharma case for reconsideration to larger Bench – The grounds for reference were that Satyawati Sharma case was contrary to Constitution Bench Judgment in Gian Devi Anand case; that it was per incuriam Three Judge Bench judgment in #Gauri Shanker case; that without adverting to s.25-B, s.14(1)(e) could not have been made applicable for non-residential premises and that it was not open to the Court to read down the provisions of s.14(1)(e) in Satyawati Sharma case – Held: Judgment in Satyawati Sharma case cannot be said to be per incuriam or contrary to the judgment of Constitution Bench in Gian Devi Anand case or three Judgment Bench judgment in #Gauri Shanker case – Gauri Shanker case being on different provision and premise, is distinguishable and cannot be said to be a binding precedent – In Gian Devi Anand case it was suggested to legislature to consider making ‘bonafide requirement’ a ground for eviction in respect of commercial premises as well – Rather Satyawati Sharma case seeks support from Gian Devi Anand case – In pursuance to the suggestion in Gian Devi Anand case Delhi Rent Act, 1995 was enacted – The judgment in Satyawati Sharma case was not a case of reading down of s.14(1)(e), but was a case where a portion of the provision which was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 was struck down – s.25-B being related to only procedure for considering application u/s.14(1)(e), has no bearing on the issue which was considered in Satyawati Sharma case – Nothing in s. 25-B can be read which runs counter to what is laid down in Satyawati Sharma case – Therefore, non-consideration of s.25-B in Satyawati Sharma case cannot be a ground to refer the case to larger Bench – Thus, there is no good ground to refer the judgment in Satyawati Sharma case for reconsideration by a larger Bench. Legislation: A legislation is complete, when the Act is passed by the legislature and receives the assent of the President, even if it is not enforced. Judgments/Orders: Principle of per incuriam – Meaning and applicability of. Rejecting the plea to refer the judgment in Satyawati Sharma case to larger Bench and directing to list the matter for consideration on merits, the Court.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 860
Petitioner	Vinod Kumar
Respondent	Ashok Kumar Gandhi
SCR	[2019] 10 S.C.R. 1051
Judgement Date	2019-08-05
Case Number	3793

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi

Please Log-in to view this content

Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi

Dr. K. Madan Vs. Krishnawati (smt.) and Another

M/s. Precision Steel and Engg. Works Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal

Smt. Prakash Mehra Vs. K.l. Malhotra

Umesh Verma Vs. Jai Devi Bhandari and Anr.

K.n. Anantharaja Gupta Vs. Smt. D.v. Usha Vijay Kumar

Kartar Singh Vs. Chaman Lal & Others

Vaishakhi Ram and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani

Kusum Lata Sharma Vs. Arvind Singh

Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi

Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi

Dr. K. Madan Vs. Krishnawati (smt.) and Another

M/s. Precision Steel and Engg. Works Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal

Smt. Prakash Mehra Vs. K.l. Malhotra

Umesh Verma Vs. Jai Devi Bhandari and Anr.

K.n. Anantharaja Gupta Vs. Smt. D.v. Usha Vijay Kumar

Kartar Singh Vs. Chaman Lal & Others

Vaishakhi Ram and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani

Kusum Lata Sharma Vs. Arvind Singh

Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi