Delhi Rent Control – Constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) – Article 14 – Discrimination between Residential and Non-Residential Premises – Partly Struck Down – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which confined landlord’s right of eviction on bona fide requirement to residential premises, held unconstitutional under Article 14 – Classification held arbitrary in present circumstances – Discriminatory words severed – Landlords can now seek eviction from both residential and non-residential premises on bona fide requirement [Paras 15, 29-32, 41-44].

Reasonable Classification – Passage of Time Rendering Classification Arbitrary – A legislative classification valid at inception may become unconstitutional with change in social/economic conditions – Refugee influx of 1947 justified distinction initially – But after 50 years, with growth in commercial property, justification lost – Doctrine from Bhopal Sugar Industries and Motor General Traders applied [Paras 31-36].

Doctrine of Equality – Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Classification must have intelligible differentia with rational nexus to object – Courts caution against overreliance on classification – Law should treat similarly situated alike – Outdated distinctions cannot survive constitutional scrutiny [Paras 16-19].

Severability – Only Discriminatory Portion Struck Down – Section 14(1)(e) not struck down in entirety – Only limitation to residential premises removed – Remaining part survives – Explanation below Section 14(1)(e) declared redundant – Severability principle applied [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court set aside – Section 14(1)(e) partly struck down – Provision now applies to both residential and non-residential premises for bona fide requirement – Writ petitions allowed, impugned orders quashed – No costs [Para 44].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) – Bona fide requirement – Discrimination between residential and non-residential premises – Section 14(1)(e) held partly unconstitutional – The classification restricting landlord’s right of eviction to residential premises only held violative of Article 14 – Provision read down to apply uniformly to all premises, residential or non-residential – Explanation to Section 14(1)(e) treated as redundant – Appeals allowed [Paras 13-15, 27-29, 38-41].

Reasonable Classification – Passage of Time – Doctrine of equality – A legislative classification valid at the time of enactment may become arbitrary and unconstitutional with lapse of time and change of circumstances – Differential treatment to non-residential tenants introduced in 1947 continued without rational basis in 2008 – Held: justification no longer survives, classification struck down [Paras 28-30, 32-34].

Judicial Review – Scope – Courts can strike down discriminatory legislative provisions – Rule of severability applied – Where the unconstitutional part of a statute can be severed, courts may strike only that part while saving the rest – Section 14(1)(e) modified accordingly [Paras 39-40].

Rent Control Jurisprudence – Shift in judicial approach – Earlier judgments tilted in favour of tenants – Later rulings emphasise balancing rights of landlords and tenants – Courts should not perpetuate undue hardship to landlords under the guise of tenant protection [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 declared discriminatory and partly struck down – Provision now enables eviction of tenants from both residential and non-residential premises on ground of landlord’s bona fide requirement – Appeals allowed, impugned Delhi High Court judgment set aside [Paras 38-41].

Probate Proceedings – Caveatable Interest – Scope and Meaning – Court clarified that caveatable interest must be a real, direct, and existing interest in the estate of the testator – Mere speculative claims, contingent succession, remote relationship, spiritual obligations, or apprehension of mismanagement by existing heirs do not create caveatable interest – Busy bodies, interlopers, tenants, transferees pendente lite, or remote agnates have no locus – Only heirs, legal representatives, executors or legatees named in a genuine will can maintain a caveat – Probate cannot be opposed by questioning the testator’s title or power of disposition as probate jurisdiction is limited [Paras 76-99, 100-111, 133-140].

Succession Law – Reversioners, Agnates and Remote Relatives – Earlier Calcutta and Madras High Court decisions granting caveatable rights to Hindu reversioners and agnates under pre-1956 law held no longer applicable after enactment of Hindu Succession Act – Class II heirs of M.P. Birla (sisters) were alive and impleaded; thus, Birla appellants as agnates/reversioners had no caveatable interest – Succession cannot remain in abeyance, and heirs of deceased heirs inherit in their own right – Doctrine of “spes successionis” rejected [Paras 79-83, 92-96, 133-138].

Probate Law – Mutual Wills – Nature and Effect – Mutual wills executed in 1982 by M.P. Birla and P.D. Birla did not create irrevocable rights – A will remains revocable till the testator’s death – Last will must be probated irrespective of mutual arrangements – Even if mutual wills constitute an agreement, enforcement lies in equity through a separate civil suit for specific performance and not in probate – Filing of suit under Section 92 CPC does not create caveatable interest – Probate court only examines validity of the last testament and not contractual enforcement [Paras 116-132, 173, 182-183].

Executors – Right to Lodge Caveat – Only executors named by testator in a valid will have locus – Appointment of B.K. Birla and Yashovardhan Birla as executors by deed in 2004 held invalid since M.P. Birla never assumed office and hence no vacancy arose – Such appointment does not confer caveatable interest – G.P. Birla, being named executor in 1982 will, held to have caveatable interest – Rajendra S. Lodha also held to have caveatable interest as beneficiary under 1999 will – Appointment of Yashovardhan Birla as executor in place of P.D. Birla under M.P. Birla’s will not sustainable [Paras 146-170, 164-167, 180-181].

Probate Proceedings – Judgment in Rem – Probate judgment binds all parties but does not adjudicate title to property – Title disputes, questions of trust, or mutual will enforcement cannot be decided in probate – Revocation of probate permissible under Section 263 of 1925 Act in cases of fraud, suppression or lack of citation – Probate court cannot be converted into a title court [Paras 102-103, 111, 173].

Procedure – High Court Rules – Calcutta High Court rules providing for preliminary determination of caveatable interest upheld – Such rules validly framed under CPC Section 122 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Court has inherent power to frame preliminary issues to prevent wasteful litigation by parties with no locus [Para 115].

Interpretation of Statute – Purposive Construction – Succession laws to be interpreted in line with changed social and legal context – Pre-Hindu Succession Act precedents allowing reversioners or distant relatives to enter caveats not relevant post-1956 – Probate law cannot be extended to protect spiritual well-being or family prestige [Paras 104-106, 139-140].

Pre-emption and Co-ownership – Right of pre-emption or co-ownership interest in orchards claimed by appellants does not constitute caveatable interest – Testamentary disposition does not defeat rights of co-sharers – Such rights run with land and remain enforceable against heirs/executors but do not justify lodging caveat [Paras 142-145].

Trusts – Section 73 of Indian Trusts Act – Executors do not automatically become trustees until administration of estate is complete – Appointment of trustees under trust law cannot be equated with executors under wills – Section 73 has no application in the facts [Paras 174-175].

Decision: Appeal of Lodha allowed – Appointment of Yashovardhan Birla as executor set aside – All other appeals dismissed – Probate of P.D. Birla’s 1999 will to be taken up first, followed by M.P. Birla’s 1982 will – Civil suit on mutual wills to be heard only after probate proceedings – Costs of Rs. 2,50,000 imposed on Birla appellants payable to West Bengal Legal Services Authority [Paras 185-189].

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Minimum Number of Participants – Conviction Under Section 396 IPC – Illegal When Fewer Than Five Accused Found Guilty Without Finding of Others’ Participation – Conviction Set Aside – Trial court convicted four out of six accused under Section 396 IPC while acquitting two others without recording any finding that five or more persons conjointly committed the offence – Held: In absence of such finding or established participation of unidentified accused, conviction under Section 396 IPC is not sustainable – Conviction liable to be set aside [Paras 13–19, 34].

Criminal Law – Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Limited When Assembly of Five or More Not Established – Precedents Discussed – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 IPC arises only when five or more persons are proved to be part of an unlawful assembly – Court must record a clear finding that such number existed – Conviction of fewer than five not permissible under Section 396 IPC unless Court finds that additional unidentified accused were present and participated – Trial court and High Court failed to do so [Paras 20–25].

Criminal Law – Alternative Charge of Murder – Absence of Charge Under Section 302 IPC – Conviction Cannot Be Converted to Murder – Alternative Charges Not Framed – Appellant Cannot Be Convicted of Murder in Isolation – Unlike cases where alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and proved, here appellant was not charged under Section 302 IPC at all – Hence, State’s argument that appellant could be convicted for murder under Section 302 simpliciter rejected [Paras 31–33].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – No Finding of Acquittal Due to Identification Doubt – Participation of Less Than Five Accused Established – Conviction Under Section 396 IPC Cannot Be Upheld – Trial court did not hold that two acquitted accused participated but were not identified – Instead, it gave them benefit of doubt regarding participation itself – Hence, number of accused fell below five, making Section 396 inapplicable [Paras 16–19, 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction of appellant under Section 396 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 35–36].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Death Penalty – Appellant had resided with victims' family for four years and brutally murdered three children aged 8, 15 and 16 during the night using a sharp-edged weapon – Also inflicted grievous injuries on three adult family members – Motive was related to unpaid dues and perceived insult – Held: Eyewitness testimonies of injured victims corroborated by medical evidence – Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC upheld [Paras 2–14]

Criminal Sentencing – Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Case – Murder of innocent and defenceless children by a person who lived as a trusted member of their household – Attack was brutal, unprovoked, and diabolic in nature – Appellant did not spare even his benefactors and their children – Held: Crime shocks the collective conscience – Death sentence justified as life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate [Paras 15–21]

Criminal Law – Eyewitness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Credibility – PW-1 (son), PW-2 (mother), and PW-3 (father/informant) were all injured in the incident and consistently identified the appellant as the sole assailant – Their presence at the scene was natural and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Held: Testimonies are credible and unimpeached in cross-examination [Paras 5–14]

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem reports revealed extensive incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon – Injuries on deceased and injured witnesses consistent with eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence strongly corroborates prosecution’s version of events [Paras 9–12]

Sentencing – Guidelines – Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh Principles – Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty the exception – Applied tests: gravity of offence, manner of commission, helplessness of victims, betrayal of trust, and brutality – Held: Appellant’s conduct met all criteria for capital punishment [Paras 17–20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and death sentence under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Sessions Court and High Court findings affirmed.

Service Law – Notional Promotion – Claim to Ante-dated Promotion – Promotion must be from date of actual appointment and not from date of vacancy – Appellant promoted as General Manager on 29.11.1996 – Claimed notional promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits and seniority over private respondents – Tribunal rejected claim – High Court granted notional promotion with benefits but denied seniority – Supreme Court reversed High Court – Held: Promotion becomes effective only from date of actual promotion – Date of vacancy or empanelment irrelevant – Appeal by employee dismissed – Appeal by Union of India allowed [Paras 3–7, 10–11].

Judicial Precedents – Distinction from Earlier Ruling – Reliance on Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal rejected – Appellant relied on Union of India v. B.S. Agarwal to claim notional promotion – Court held decision in Agarwal case was based on special facts and humanitarian grounds – Cannot be treated as precedent – Rules requiring two years’ tenure in lower post before promotion must be strictly followed – No deviation allowed [Paras 8–9].

Seniority – Consequential Seniority Denied – Claim for seniority over private respondents rejected – High Court rightly denied relief of seniority – Promotion cannot be ante-dated to disturb existing seniority without statutory backing – No entitlement to claim seniority from notional date [Para 5].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 (by employee) dismissed – Civil Appeal No. 8059 of 2001 (by Union of India) allowed – High Court judgment set aside – No order as to costs.

Essential Commodities Act – Sugar Price Fixation – Clause 5A Liability and SAP – Must be considered in levy sugar pricing – Central Government fixed levy sugar price for sugar years 1983–84 and 1984–85 without accounting for additional cane price under Clause 5A of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and State Advised Price (SAP) under UP Act – Held: Clause 5A imposes statutory liability and must be treated as cost under Section 3(3C)(b) – SAP payable under State law also falls within purview of Section 3(3C)(b) or (d) – Ignoring these components vitiates price fixation process [Paras 1–15, 50–56, 60–64].

Judicial Review – Legislative Price Fixation – Scope – Although price fixation is a legislative function, it is subject to limited judicial review – Courts may intervene where statutory factors under Section 3(3C) are ignored or misapplied – Rule of purposive construction and executive estoppel applied to ensure consistency with legislative object and prior judicial pronouncements [Paras 45–49, 62, 64–65].

Precedents – Malaprabha-I Binding – Modi Industries Decision Limited to Sugar Year 1982–83 – Supreme Court affirms correctness of Malaprabha-I (1997) and Malaprabha-II, directing price refixation considering Clause 5A liability – Holds that Modi Industries and subsequent decisions limited to sugar year 1982–83 where Clause 5A not applicable – Reliance on Modi by Union of India in later years is misconceived [Paras 21–31, 58–60].

Constitutional Law – Article 254 – No Repugnancy Between State SAP and Central SMP – Fixation of higher sugarcane price by State Government under Section 16 of UP Act not repugnant to Central legislation – SAP can coexist with Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) fixed by Central Government – Constitution Bench in UP Coop. Cane Unions Federation held SAP is within State’s competence [Paras 37, 62–63].

Conclusion – Delhi High Court’s View in Mahalakshmi Overruled – Price to be Re-fixed – Supreme Court overrules Delhi High Court’s judgment in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills for not applying Malaprabha-I and II correctly – Affirms High Court judgment in Hari Nagar Sugar Mills as correct in law – Directs Union of India to re-fix levy sugar price for appellants, taking into account Clause 5A liability and SAP – Relief confined to parties before court [Paras 72–73].

Decision: Appeals by Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and others allowed – Appeals by Union of India dismissed – Union of India directed to re-fix levy sugar price considering Clause 5A and SAP – No order as to costs.

Freedom Fighters’ Pension – Date of Commencement – Benefit of Doubt – Respondent applied for pension in 1981 under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme – Application was rejected in 1993 but later allowed by the High Court – Pension was granted from 4.8.1993 (date of High Court order) – Respondent claimed pension from 28.7.1981 (date of application) – Held: Where pension is granted on benefit of doubt or on the basis of secondary evidence, pension is payable from the date of the order and not from the date of application – Precedent in Kaushalaya Devi followed – Mukund Lal Bhandari distinguished [Paras 3–8]

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Article 16 – Delay in State verification – Central Government justified in granting pension from date of order where delay was due to lack of cooperation by State authorities in verification – Held: In absence of clear entitlement at the time of application, retrospective grant not warranted [Paras 4–6]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Respondent entitled to pension only from 4 August 1993 – No order as to costs [Paras 8–9]

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Smuggling Allegation – Delay in Initiation – Respondent, an Intelligence Bureau officer, was dismissed from service on grounds of unauthorized border visit and alleged complicity in smuggling activities – Customs proceedings dropped charges and criminal court acquitted him of conspiracy and other offences – Department initiated disciplinary action nine years later without fresh evidence – Held: Such delayed proceedings based solely on uncorroborated conclusions of disciplinary authorities, without any independent evidence, are arbitrary and mala fide [Paras 5, 15, 17, 22, 24].

Natural Justice – Procedural Irregularities – Bias – Respondent denied opportunity to examine key defence witness Jumma – Defence assistant’s absence not properly addressed – Inquiry Officer improperly cross-examined the respondent and acted as prosecutor – Held: Proceedings were vitiated by procedural impropriety and bias – Violation of principles of natural justice rendered inquiry report perverse and unsustainable [Paras 7, 19, 20].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Relevance in Departmental Proceedings – Acquittal not merely based on benefit of doubt but on clear findings of lack of evidence and official authority for respondent's actions – Held: Where departmental charges are identical to those in criminal proceedings and the latter end in exoneration after full trial, disciplinary authority cannot differ without cogent material or fresh evidence – Department failed to justify deviation [Paras 4, 15, 21, 26, 27].

Disciplinary Law – Burden of Proof – Quasi-Judicial Duty of Inquiry Officer – Findings must be based on preponderance of probabilities supported by material on record – Held: Inquiry Officer failed to consider relevant testimony of Mool Singh and ignored earlier exonerations by competent authorities – Disciplinary and appellate authorities acted on suspicion and conjecture without any new evidence – Action was arbitrary and legally unsustainable [Paras 20, 24, 30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of reinstatement by Central Administrative Tribunal upheld – Respondent to be reinstated with full consequential benefits – ₹1,00,000 costs awarded to the respondent [Paras 31–32].