9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. 53/2014 & CM 1650/2014
% 23rd July , 2014
SMT. SIMRAN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
SHRI RAMANAND GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 03.12.2013 by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and an eviction order was passed with respect to the tenanted premises No. 170, Sanjay Enclave, First Floor, LIG Flats, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
2. This case came up for admission for the first time about six months back on 28.1.2014, when on the request of the petitioner adjournment was RC. REV. 53/2014 Page 1 of 5 granted for today. Today, once again, an adjournment was prayed on the ground that one counsel Mr. Bedi is not available, however, there is no reference of Mr. Bedi either in the earlier order dated 28.1.2014 or as per the Vakalatnama filed on record. I have, therefore, refused to adjourn the case one more time which has already been adjourned for six months.
3. The case of the respondent-landlord was that tenanted premises are required for residential user of his son who is living in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and which place is far away from the office of the son which is situated in Rohini near the suit premises.
4. The petitioner/tenant contested the petition by stating that the son of the respondent/landlord was living at B-40, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad and which was therefore alternative suitable accommodation. It was also pleaded by the petitioner/tenant that bona fide necessity petition cannot lie because of the fact that the premises have come to be owned by the respondent/landlord only on 1.11.2008, by way of succession after the death of his father, and the present petition was filed within 5 years on 21.3.2011.
5. So far as the second aspect is concerned, the same is totally baseless because the bar of five years of filing of eviction petition for bona fide necessity under Section 14(6) of the Act is only where landlord acquires a RC. REV. 53/2014 Page 2 of 5 premises by transfer. When a premises is acquired by devolution on account of death of the predecessor-in-interest, the bar under Section 14(6) of the Act does not apply. This aspect has rightly been decided by the Additional Rent Controller in paras 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment and which paras are read as under:
"10. Section 14 (6) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reads as under :-
"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 have elapsed from the date of the acquisition."
In the case of Onkar Singh Vs. Saheb Ditta Mal Kohli 1970 RCR 18, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under :-
"It is clear from the language particularly in view of the background of the object of sub-section (6) that the transfer must be by a voluntary act of the landlord who transfers. An acquisition of the property by inheritance can by no stretch of imagination be said to be such a voluntary transfer even if the property comes to the heir by means of will. According to the argument advanced, even in a case where the landlord filed a petition on the ground of personal bonafide requirement and died during the pendency of the petition wherein his heirs are brought on the record as his legal representatives, the petition will be defeated because the heirs have obtained the property by transfer and will not have completed the requisite period of five years after acquisition of the property. In my opinion, the word "transfer" in sub-section (6) of section 14 of the Act contemplates only a voluntary transfer by inheritance. That being so, there is no substance in the objection as to the RC. REV. 53/2014 Page 3 of 5 maintainability of the petition by the respondent before the expiry of five years from the date when he acquired the property by inheritance."
11. Further in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Rajeshwari Pandey 1998 (75) DLT 238, it has been held that devolution of property does not attract the bar of five years on seeking eviction.
12. Hence, in the present case also, after applying the decisions as narrated above, it is clear that devolution of ownership upon the petitioner by way of survivorship shall not attract the bar contained in Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Hence the present petition is not barred under Section 14(6) of Delhi Rent Control Act."
6. The second aspect as to whether the son of the respondent/landlord living at B-40, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. is concerned, the Additional Rent Controller had held that even if the son of the petitioner is staying at Ghaziabad, that cannot take away his bona fide need to shift the son to the suit premises which is near his work place. I completely agree with this conclusion of the Additional Rent Controller, and, in addition a very important aspect is required to be noted and which has been missed out by the Additional Rent Controller and which aspect is that it is an alternative suitable premises only if such alternative premises are situated in Delhi. It is now settled law as per the various judgments of this Court that premises which are situated outside Delhi cannot be considered as an alternative suitable accommodation for proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act. RC. REV. 53/2014 Page 4 of 5 Therefore, for this additional reason, the residence of the son of the landlord at Ghaziabad is irrelevant and has no bearing with respect to the eviction for bona fide necessity, which otherwise stands established.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
RC. REV. 53/2014 Page 5 of 5