Full Text
Translation output
IN THE fflGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RC.REV. 140/2011
URMILA MEHRA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satyakam Saini, Advocate
RC.REV. 140/2011
URMILA MEHRA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satyakam Saini, Advocate
VERSUS
DALPAT SINGH Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Rabinder Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
05.08.2011
05.08.2011
RC.REV. 140/2011 and CM APPL. 8524/2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner - landlord is aggrieved by the. order passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller granting leave to defend to the respondent - tenant the eviction petition filed by her under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 against him inrespect ofthe premises in question onthe ground ofher bonafide requirement ofthe same.
The petitioner - landlady presently staying inaposh colony ofNew Delhi filed the eviction petition against the respondent inrespect ofthe property under his tenancy in Jeewan Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi, which had been let out to her by her deceased husband, claiming that she wants to shift to that premises as she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for herself as well as her family members depending upon her for residence out of whom her two sons were settled in UAE but have now decidedto come back to India. She pleaded in the eviction petition that she wanted all her family members to be with her in one house in different units to be constructed in the house in question from where evictionof the respondent was being sought.
The respondent - tenant sought leave to defend the eviction petition on different grounds and the main ground was that the petitioner was already residing at E-61, NDSE-I, New Delhi, which property was a 3 ^2 storeyed house and in that house she had been living for more than four decades.
The learned Additional Rent Controller deah with. this plea of the
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner - landlord is aggrieved by the. order passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller granting leave to defend to the respondent - tenant the eviction petition filed by her under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 against him inrespect ofthe premises in question onthe ground ofher bonafide requirement ofthe same.
The petitioner - landlady presently staying inaposh colony ofNew Delhi filed the eviction petition against the respondent inrespect ofthe property under his tenancy in Jeewan Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi, which had been let out to her by her deceased husband, claiming that she wants to shift to that premises as she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for herself as well as her family members depending upon her for residence out of whom her two sons were settled in UAE but have now decidedto come back to India. She pleaded in the eviction petition that she wanted all her family members to be with her in one house in different units to be constructed in the house in question from where evictionof the respondent was being sought.
The respondent - tenant sought leave to defend the eviction petition on different grounds and the main ground was that the petitioner was already residing at E-61, NDSE-I, New Delhi, which property was a 3 ^2 storeyed house and in that house she had been living for more than four decades.
The learned Additional Rent Controller deah with. this plea of the
RC.REV. 140/2011 p«gg1 of 4
2.
2011:DHC:15708 tenants in the buildingare required to be evicted. Whereas, the petitioner has nottakenany steps for eviction of other tenants. Therefore, it raises a triable issue as to whether the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafidely or not."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the eviction petition was filed under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Actand, therefore, the question of her being in possession of any other alternative accommodation was irrelevant and all that was required to be shown by the petitioner was that she was a widow and that the tenanted premises had been let out either by herself or by her deceased husband and both these facts in the present case being not disputed by the respondent - tenant there was no justification in giving leave to the respondent - tenant to contest the eviction petition by the trial Court.
I am, however, not in agreement with the afore-said submission of the learned counsel for the petition for the reason that even in an eviction petition filedby a widowunder Section 14-D it hasto be shownthat the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the widow - landlady. In the present case, the facts narrated in detail by the learned AdditionalRent Controller in the impugned order which have been extracted already, make it clear that the requirement of the petitioner - landlady, primafacie, cannot be saidto be bonafide. In fact, all that she desires is to construct residential apartments after getting the premises in occupation of the respondent vacated. Presently, her children and grandchildren are admittedly living in UAE and the petitioner herself is also admittedly staying in NDSE, a posh locality of New Delhi of which she is a co-owner with her children who are in UAE and it appears to be quite improbable that she would leave that posh area to settle down in JeewanNagar, Ashram.
I, therefore, do not find any perversity in the impugned order of the
Additional Rent Controller justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
AUGUST 05, 2011 sh
2.
2011:DHC:15708 tenants in the buildingare required to be evicted. Whereas, the petitioner has nottakenany steps for eviction of other tenants. Therefore, it raises a triable issue as to whether the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafidely or not."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the eviction petition was filed under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Actand, therefore, the question of her being in possession of any other alternative accommodation was irrelevant and all that was required to be shown by the petitioner was that she was a widow and that the tenanted premises had been let out either by herself or by her deceased husband and both these facts in the present case being not disputed by the respondent - tenant there was no justification in giving leave to the respondent - tenant to contest the eviction petition by the trial Court.
I am, however, not in agreement with the afore-said submission of the learned counsel for the petition for the reason that even in an eviction petition filedby a widowunder Section 14-D it hasto be shownthat the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the widow - landlady. In the present case, the facts narrated in detail by the learned AdditionalRent Controller in the impugned order which have been extracted already, make it clear that the requirement of the petitioner - landlady, primafacie, cannot be saidto be bonafide. In fact, all that she desires is to construct residential apartments after getting the premises in occupation of the respondent vacated. Presently, her children and grandchildren are admittedly living in UAE and the petitioner herself is also admittedly staying in NDSE, a posh locality of New Delhi of which she is a co-owner with her children who are in UAE and it appears to be quite improbable that she would leave that posh area to settle down in JeewanNagar, Ashram.
I, therefore, do not find any perversity in the impugned order of the
Additional Rent Controller justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
AUGUST 05, 2011 sh
RC.REV. 140/2011
P.K. BHAS vase 4 of4/ feviW IXS'Q.ol| (7^ ^0toll
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
URMILA MEHRA
Thi'ough:
Petitioner Mr. H. Devrajan, Mr. Satylcam Saini &
Mr. Asholc Rajagopalan, Advocates
P.K. BHAS vase 4 of4/ feviW IXS'Q.ol| (7^ ^0toll
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
URMILA MEHRA
Thi'ough:
Petitioner Mr. H. Devrajan, Mr. Satylcam Saini &
Mr. Asholc Rajagopalan, Advocates
VERSUS
DALPAT SINGH
Tlirough: None
Tlirough: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
21.09.2011 Respondent
21.09.2011 Respondent
CM APPL. 17230/2011
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of accordingly.
Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of accordingly.
REV. PETITION 525/2011
I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that while rejecting the revision petition this Court had observed that even in an eviction petition filed by a widow under Section 14 (D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 she has to show the bonafides ofher requirement| ui respect ofthe tenanted premises on the basis of which she seeks eviction of a tenant, in fact, is an observation on a misconception oflaw and that is a good ground for review ofthe order dated s"'
August, 2011. In support of this argument leai'ned counsel has cited one
I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that while rejecting the revision petition this Court had observed that even in an eviction petition filed by a widow under Section 14 (D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 she has to show the bonafides ofher requirement| ui respect ofthe tenanted premises on the basis of which she seeks eviction of a tenant, in fact, is an observation on a misconception oflaw and that is a good ground for review ofthe order dated s"'
August, 2011. In support of this argument leai'ned counsel has cited one
ORDER
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Board of Controlfor Cricket in India & Anr.
Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.AIR 2005 SC 592. Another judgment of the
Supreme Court in "V. Rajaswari Vs. Bombay Tyres Intl. Ltd.", 1955 Supp (3) see has also been cited by the learned counsel while contending that in the said judgment the Supreme Court has categorically held that in a case under Section
14 (D), the tenant has practically no defence whatsoever. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by this Court on 5"^ August, 2011 deserves to be reviewed. Alternative submission made is that in case this Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition then at least the learned Additional Rent Controller should be directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest possible consideringthe fact that petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age.
After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady, I do not find any ground to entertain this review petition and the same is, therefore, rejected. As far as the alternative prayer is concerned, it is ordered that the trial Court should malce all possible efforts to dispose of the eviction petition as early as possible by giving short dates keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age.
P.K. BHASIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.AIR 2005 SC 592. Another judgment of the
Supreme Court in "V. Rajaswari Vs. Bombay Tyres Intl. Ltd.", 1955 Supp (3) see has also been cited by the learned counsel while contending that in the said judgment the Supreme Court has categorically held that in a case under Section
14 (D), the tenant has practically no defence whatsoever. According to the learned counsel, the order passed by this Court on 5"^ August, 2011 deserves to be reviewed. Alternative submission made is that in case this Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition then at least the learned Additional Rent Controller should be directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest possible consideringthe fact that petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age.
After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady, I do not find any ground to entertain this review petition and the same is, therefore, rejected. As far as the alternative prayer is concerned, it is ordered that the trial Court should malce all possible efforts to dispose of the eviction petition as early as possible by giving short dates keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age.
P.K. BHASIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2011