Recently, the Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) that had granted leave to defend to the tenants, holding that the respondents had failed to raise any triable issue and were not lawful tenants. The Court observed that “unauthorized occupants cannot be permitted to frustrate the legislative intent of providing a summary remedy to landlords seeking possession for bona fide requirement.”
Brief Facts:
The petitioners, being landlords, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession of two rooms, a kothri, dalan, open courtyard with latrine, bathroom, and two kitchens on the ground floor of a property located at Phatak Dhobian, Farash Khana, Delhi.
The premises were originally let out by the petitioners’ grandfather to the father of the respondent-tenant. Over time, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioners’ mother, to whom rent was regularly paid. However, the father of the tenant allegedly handed over possession to a third party, whose family members began occupying the premises without any legal authority. The landlords claimed bona fide need for the property as the wife of one of the petitioners had undergone a caesarean surgery and was advised against using stairs, while their current residence was in a dilapidated condition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioners contended that the ARC erred in granting leave to defend to persons who were merely unauthorized occupants and not tenants under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was argued that the original tenant never filed any application to contest the eviction, and hence the respondents’ plea was not maintainable.
The petitioners further submitted that the ARC had relied upon a receipt dated 10 July 1997, which allegedly reflected an agreement to sell, ignoring the fact that a civil suit based on the same receipt had already been dismissed by the trial court and the appeal therefrom had also been rejected by the High Court. Thus, the respondents could not reopen an issue that had already attained finality.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Conversely, the respondents’ counsel argued that the revision petition was not maintainable and that the ARC had rightly granted leave to defend as substantial triable issues existed regarding the ownership of the property. They relied upon several Apex Court judgments to support their contention that the ownership of the landlord was not conclusively established.
Observation of the Court:
The Court rejected the respondents’ objection regarding maintainability and held that the revision petition was validly filed under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. It noted that the respondents had taken inconsistent and self-contradictory stands, on one hand, claiming that the petitioners’ mother had agreed to sell the property through the 1997 receipt, while on the other hand disputing the petitioners’ ownership of the same premises. The Court observed that such mutually destructive pleas “cannot go hand in hand” and that the respondents “cannot be allowed to sail in two boats at the same time.”
Emphasizing the legislative intent behind Section 25B of the DRC Act, the Court stated that the provision was designed to provide a “summary and speedy remedy to landlords seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.” It further held that allowing unauthorized occupants to contest the eviction would defeat the very object of the statute.
The Court also highlighted that the bona fide requirement of the petitioners stood clearly established by medical evidence and photographs of their existing accommodation. Referring to the settled principle of law, the Court observed, “In any case, it is a settled law that once landlord establishes that the property wherefrom he is seeking eviction is required bona fide by him, then the issue of availability of alternative accommodation is merely incidental. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the landlord, based on his subjective assessment, to choose an accommodation that reasonably satisfy his requirement. A landlord being the best judge of his needs cannot be thrusted with the opinion of the tenant or the Court.”
Citing Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja and Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim, the Court reiterated that once the bona fide requirement is established, availability of alternative accommodation loses significance. The Court additionally observed, “The respondents surely cannot be allowed to have a second bite at the same cherry.”
The decision of the Court:
Holding that the ARC’s order suffered from “manifest error and perversity,” the Delhi High Court set it aside and allowed the eviction petition, noted that, “There was hardly any material before the learned ARC to doubt the ownership of the petitioners so as to warrant the grant of leave.”
An eviction order was accordingly passed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject premises at Phatak Dhobian, Farash Khana, Delhi. However, as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the order for recovery of possession shall not be executed before the expiry of six months. The Court disposed of the petition with no order as to costs.
Case Title: MS Farheen Israil & Anr. Vs. Ghulam Rasool Wani & Ors.
Case No.: RC.REV. 39/2024
Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Amit Dhalla, Sohan Singh Rawat
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, Firdouse Qutb Wani, Subia Naaz, Dev Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
