DRC important cases:

 G.K. BHATNAGAR v. ABDUL ALIM (2002) 9 SCC 516:

o Ratio - However, inducting a partner in his business or profession by the tenant is
permitted so long as such partnership may ostensibly be to carry on the business or
profession in partnership, but the real purpose be sub-letting of the premises to such
other person who is inducted ostensibly as a partner, then the same shall be deemed
to be an act of sub-letting attracting the applicability of clause (b) of sub section (1) of
section 14 of the Act.
o Partnership is only ostensible (to show certain way) but the real purpose was
sub-letting then can be evicted under this clause.

 SANTRAM v. RAJINDER LAL 1979 SC - the tenant took for cobbler work but used to sleep
and eat there also. SC held that this is not other purpose. Had he used for tailor then other
purpose thus can’t be evicted as section not attracted. Judgment - You struggle to make a
small income and work late into the right from early in the morning and, during intervals, rest
your bones in the same place, drawing down the shutters of the shop for a while. The primary
purpose is to ply a petty trade, the secondary, but necessary incident, is to sleep in the same
place since you can hardly afford anything but a pavement. In this view, the appeal is allowed
with costs. The tenant shall not be ejected.

 Baldev Sahai Bagla v. R.C. Bhasin, 1982 SC - meaning of family is wide.

o “family” has to be given not a restricted but a wider meaning so as to include not only
the head of the family but all members or descendants from the common ancestors
who are actually living with the same head... term “family” must always be liberally and
broadly construed so as to include near relations of the head of the family.

 Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, 2008 SC:

o In Satyawati Sharma, it was held that Section 14(1) (e) of Act is violative of the doctrine
of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution in so far as it discriminates
between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes.
o BUT not totally striking down of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in its entirety but it has
struck down only the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e).
o Basically now this section applies to both residential and non-residential.