Preeti Gupta v. M/S Bikram Traders

5. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that notice was issued in all the aforesaid petitions on 22.04.2024. Report with regard to the said notice shows that respondents in all the petitions have been served; however, in RC.REV. 299/2023, none has entered appearance on behalf of the said respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord submits that the latter is a widow. She is stated to be partially paralyzed and handicapped from left side and requires the tenanted premises on account of bonafide requirement for running the business of electrical maintenance in Delhi as also for the professional business of her daughters. It is submitted that title of the subject property wherein the tenanted premises are situated has devolved to her by way of a Gift Deed dated 18.07.2022 executed by her husband in her favour and the same would not fall within the meaning of ‘transfer’ as provided under Section 14(6) of the DRCA. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner was the lawful owner of the subject premises and the petitioner being his wife had legal right over the same as the ownership of the husband over the said property relates back to the Will dated 28.01.2005 by which the subject property was inherited by him from Ashok Kumar Verma. It is further submitted that such transfer by way of inheritance would not be barred under Section 14(6) as the same was enacted to curb the voluntary act of transfer by the landlords and not by inheritance. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner being legal representative and legal heir of her husband, Anil Gupta, could have filed or continued the eviction proceedings, if the same would have been instituted by him. Therefore, the bar under Section 14(6) for institution of eviction proceedings would not be applicable to the present case. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Coordinate

09.37 Bench of this Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Rajeshwari Pandey[1], in support of the case of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-tenants has submitted that the petitioner has received the entire property by way of a registered Gift Deed dated 18.07.2022 and this conveyance by virtue of its nature would come within the purview of ‘transfer’ under Section 14(6) of the DRCA. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner had received the subject property by Will dated 28.01.2005 from Ashok Kumar Verma, who was not his relative. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Sarin v. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai & Anr.2, in support of their case.

8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

9. Section 14(6) of the DRCA reads as under: -

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Sarin (supra), while examining the legislative intent of provisions of Section 14(6) of the DRCA in case of 1998 SCC OnLine Del 594: (1998) 75 DLT 238

09.37 landlord acquiring the property by way of a partition of undivided Hindu family property, had observed and held as under: - “8. That takes us to Section 14(6). It provides that where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition. It is obvious that if this clause applies to the claim made by Respondent 1 for evicting the appellant, his application would be barred, because a period of five years had not elapsed from the date of the acquisition when the present application was made. The High Court has, however, held that where property originally belonging to an undivided Hindu family is allotted to the share of one of the coparceners as a result of partition, it cannot be said that the said property has been acquired by such person by transfer; and so, Section 14(6) cannot be invoked by the appellant. The question which we have to decide in the present appeal is whether this view of the High Court is right.

9. Before construing Section 14(6), it may be permissible to enquire what may be the policy underlying the section and the object intended to be achieved by it. It seems plain that the object which this provision is intended to achieve is to prevent transfers by landlords as a device to enable the purchasers to evict the tenants from the premises let out to them. If a landlord was unable to make out a case for evicting his tenant under Section 14(1)(e), it was not unlikely that he may think of transferring the premises to a purchaser who would be able to make out such a case on his own behalf; and the legislature thought that if such a course was allowed to be adopted, it would defeat the purpose of Section 14(1). In other words, where the right to evict a tenant could not be claimed by a landlord under Section 14(1)(e), the legislature thought that the landlord should not be permitted to create such a right by adopting the device of transferring the premises to a purchaser who may be able to prove his own individual case under Section 14(1)(e). It is possible that this provision may, in some cases, work hardship, because if a transfer is made by a landlord who could have proved his case under Section 14(1)(e), the transferee would be precluded from making a claim for the eviction of the tenant within five years even though he, in his turn, would also have proved his case under Section 14(1)(e). Apparently the legislature thought that the possible mischief which may be caused to the tenants by transfers made by landlords to

09.37 circumvent the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) required that an unqualified and absolute provision should be made as prescribed by Section 14(6). That, in our opinion, appears to be the object intended to be achieved by this provision and the policy underlying it. **** **** ****

13. In dealing with the present appeal, we propose to confine our decision to the narrow question which arises before us and that relates to the construction of Section 14(6). What Section 14(6) provides is that the purchaser should acquire the premises by transfer and that necessarily assumes that the title to the property which the purchaser acquires by transfer did not vest in him prior to such transfer. Having regard to the object intended to be achieved by this provision, we are not inclined to hold that a person who acquired property by partition can fall within the scope of its provision even though the property which he acquired by partition did in a sense belong to him before such transfer. Where a property belongs to an undivided Hindu family and on partition it falls to the share of one of the coparceners of the family, there is no doubt a change of the landlord of the said premises, but the said change is not of the same character as the change which is effected by transfer of premises to which Section 14(6) refers. In regard to cases falling under Section 14(6), a person who had no title to the premises and in that sense, was a stranger, becomes a landlord by virtue of the transfer. In regard to a partition, the position is entirely different. When the appellant was inducted into the premises, the premises belonged to the undivided Hindu family consisting of Respondent 1, his father and his brother. After partition, instead of the undivided Hindu family, Respondent 1 alone had become landlord of the premises, We are satisfied that it would be unreasonable to hold that allotment of one parcel of property belonging to an undivided Hindu family to an individual coparcener as a result of partition is an acquisition of the said property by transfer by the said coparcener within the meaning of Section 14(6). In our opinion, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Section 14(6) did not create a bar against the institution of the application by Respondent 1 for evicting the appellant.”

09.37

11. In Ashok Kumar & Anr. v. Ram Avtar Gupta[3], learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with situation where the eviction petition was filed by landlord on the basis of a relinquishment deed of a share in the shop in tenancy to the exclusive use of the landlord/petitioner, which did not come in his share on demise of their father, had observed and held as under: -

12. In an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Prakash Chand Gupta & Ors.4, in similar circumstances as in the present case while dealing with the case of the landlord who had acquired the property, by way of a gift deed, had observed and held as under: -

13. Similarly, in Dr. R.C. Sakhuja & Ors. v. R.P. Kholi & Anr.5, it was observed and held that the devolution of property in the normal way by succession, whether testamentary or non-testamentary, was not intended to be covered by the expression “acquired … by transfer” within the meaning of Section 14(6) of the DRCA. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus: -

14. In view of the legislative intention as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Sarin (supra) and other judgments/orders passed by

09.37 learned Benches of this Court, the ‘Gift Deed’ in favour of the petitioner by her late husband, in the considered opinion of this Court would not be covered within the meaning of expression “transfer” as used in Section 14(6) of the DRCA.

15. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner herein acquired the property by way of a registered gift deed dated 18.07.2022 from her husband. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner has two daughters. Petitioner and her daughters are Class I legal heirs of deceased Anil Gupta, husband of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be considered as a person, who would have no title to the premises and was a complete stranger to the property as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Sarin (supra).

16. Learned counsel for the respondent had argued that the petitioner is, in fact, a stranger inasmuch as the subject premises were acquired by her husband from Ashok Kumar Verma, who was not supposedly the owner of the property. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that this issue has not been dealt with by learned ARC and the petition was dismissed only on the ground that the same is not maintainable in view of the bar by law under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. Thus, this Court will only examine the issue arising in these petitions from the said aspect.

17. The registered Gift Deed was executed on 18.07.2022 by the husband of the petitioner and the present eviction petitions were filed by the petitioner on her husband’s demise on 30.11.2022, after a period of 3 years. It is not the case of the respondents, at this stage, that the husband of the petitioner could not have filed the petition and therefore, by way of a gift deed, the right to file

09.37 the present petition was assigned to the petitioner herein. Even otherwise, had there been no gift deed and the husband of the petitioner would have died intestate or by leaving a Will in favour of the petitioner then, by way of inheritance, there was already a right subsisting in the property, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a stranger, insofar as the title of the property is concerned.

18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, although the subject property was acquired by the petitioner by way of a gift deed executed by her husband, the fact that she has vested legal right as a Class I heir of her husband even prior to the execution of the said ‘Gift Deed’ cannot be denied/disputed.

19. In the considered opinion of this Court, provisions of Section 14(6) of the DRCA, keeping in mind the legislative intent, would not bring within its purview the acquiring of subject property by the petitioner by way of ‘Gift Deed’.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order(s) dated 27.03.2023 is set aside. The present petitions are restored and remanded back to the learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for deciding the same afresh after hearing the contentions raised on behalf of the parties in accordance with law.

21. The present petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly.

22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

09.37

23. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.

24. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA (JUDGE) MARCH 09, 2026/nk/ns 09.37