Tenancy Lawyer: The Supreme Court reaffirms, the landlord in Delhi can evict the tenant in commercial premises for bonafide requirement - Satyawati Sharma Judgment lays down correct law.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K M Joseph

The SC {Vinod Kumar versus Ashok Kumar Gandhi} was considering the question whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma versus Union of India and Another requires reconsideration, or to be referred to larger bench, or it is per incuriam.

Negating the challenge, the SC holds that the judgment in Satyawati Sharma case rightly held that the legislation which may be quite reasonable and rational at the time of its enactment, may be with the lapse of time, and due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of equality. It was further held that the three judge bench of SC in subsequent judgment in Super Max case approved ratio of Satyawati Sharma.

It was further held that the ratio of SC in Gian Devi Anand has neither been ignored nor any contrary view has been taken by Satyawati Sharma judgment and the judgment in Satyawati Sharma is not per incuriam.

It was held that the parliament in enacting the 1995 Act accepts the suggestion of Constitution Bench in Gian Devi Anand and hence what has been held by Satyawati Sharma was felt both by the SC and legislature, therefore, there is no ground to refer the judgment of the SC in Satyawati Sharma for reconsideration by a larger bench as sought by the appellants/tenants. Accordingly, the ratio of Satyawati Sharma was upheld by the SC, meaning thereby, the commercial properties in Delhi can be evicted from old tenants for bonafide requirement, as going on hitherto, since the decision of SC in Satyawati Sharma in 2008.