KESHAV KUMAR SWARUP Vs. FLOWMORE PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1994-1-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on January 18,1994

Keshav Kumar Swarup Appellant
VERSUS
FLOWMORE PRIVATE LIMITED Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PREM DEVA NIRANJAN DEVA TAYAL HUF VS. PRECISION STEEL AND ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(DLH)-1999-8-97] [REFERRED]
N SRIHARI VS. N PRAKASH [LAWS(APH)-2009-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHOO MARKETING PVT LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
PALANIAMMAL DIED VS. PASUMAYIL [LAWS(MAD)-1997-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC LIMITED VS. SHARADCHANDRA VINAYAK TIPNIS [LAWS(BOM)-1995-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
HARIBAI DIGAMBARRAO BHISE VS. INDRABAI VENKATRAO KADAM [LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LUCKNOWS VS. MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-1998-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
NARRA MADHAVA RAO VS. B SADASIVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA VS. BHAJAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
C.V. THANKAPPAN, S/O. RAMAN VS. CHELLAMMA, D/O.PARVATHY [LAWS(KER)-2012-10-131] [REFERRED TO]
MACHALA BAI VS. NANAK RAM [LAWS(MPH)-2005-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VS. INDIAN BANK MUTUAL FUND [LAWS(DLH)-2008-10-105] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER NATH SAHNI VS. PODDAR CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU ASHOK KAPUR VS. RANA KAPOOR [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-96] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK MUTUAL FUND VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-7-227] [REFERRED]
MANJU LATA SHARMA VS. VINAY KUMAR DUBEY [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-305] [REFERRED]
ROYAL ORCHID ASSOCIATED HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KESHO LAL GOYAL [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant-landlord filed an application under Section 14 (1 (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant (Company) from the premises in question on the ground of bona fide requirement. After obtaining leave to contest the application, the tenant contended, relying upon clause 5 of the deed of lease which reads as under:
'That the lessee shall use the premises for the residence and personal use of Directors and/or their relatives and for the purpose of the Company. "that the premises were let out both for residential as also commercial purposes and the composite purpose of the tenancy took the premises out of the purview of the residential accommodation. The other ground on which the application was resisted was that the claim of the landlord that the premises were required for his own occupation was not a bona fide one. The Controller rejected both the contentions of the tenant and passed an order for eviction. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed a revisional application in the Delhi High court and reiterated both its contentions. The High court, while affirming the finding recorded by the Controller about the bona fide requirement of the landlord upset the finding of the Controller that clause 5 of the deed mistakably proved that the premises were let out for residential purpose only. In interpreting clause 5, the High court first observed:

"Clause 5 is not ambiguous. There is no confusion in the word used in this clause. The words 'personal use of Directors and/or their relatives and for the purpose of the Company' were used after mentioning that the premises can be used for residence meaning thereby that the other users were also permissible besides residence and that the user was for the purpose of the Company, i. e. , for the business of the Company and the Directors and their relatives also could use does not mean that Directors and their relatives are to use the premises for residence only. The personal use could be of many nature. It could be that Director or their relatives can have their office in particular rooms for their personal work beyond the work of the Company. "and ultimately concluded by saying:

"The words 'for the purpose of the Company' are very significant and cannot be given a go by. They do clearly show that the premises can be used for the purpose of Company which is obviously business of the Company. Hence it has to be held that the premises have been let out not only for residential purpose but also for commercial purpose. The interpretation of the Rent Controller with regard to the particular clause 12 does not appear to be sound. So, I set aside the finding of the Rent Controller in this regard. "on such conclusion, the High court reversed the order of the Controller and rejected the application of the landlord. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(2.)In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the Controller and the High court regarding bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, the only point that survives for consideration in this appeal is as to the true meaning of clause 5 of the lease deed. In other words, we have to find an answer to the question whether the premises were let out for residential purpose only or for a composite purpose.
(3.)In interpreting a document the intention of the parties has to be ascertained, if possible from the expressions used therein. More often than not, this causes no difficulty, but if difficulty is felt owing to inarticulate drafting or inadvertence or other causes, the intention may be gathered reading the entire document and, if so necessary, from other attending circumstances also. If through such a process the intention of the parties can be culled out consistently with the rule of law, the courts are required to take that course. Keeping these principles in mind, we may proceed to consider the facts of the instant case.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.