Mahinder Kaur vs Harbhajan Kaur

$~R-1
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Decided on :- 8th January, 2018
+       C.R.P. 881/1999
        MAHINDER KAUR                                   ..... Petitioner
                              Through:      Mr. V.K. Srivastava, Adv.
                              versus
        HARBHAJAN KAUR                                  ..... Respondent
                              Through:      None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

                          JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The revision petition at hand challenges the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on 18.05.1999 on the file of eviction case (E-88/1994) instituted by the respondent herein, invoking Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of the premises described as ground floor, front side of property bearing No. J-12/9, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining, front balcony, court yard, kitchen, verandah, latrine and bathroom as specifically shown in the site plan in red (PW- 1/3). It is not in dispute that the respondent is the landlady-cum- owner of the subject property. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been a tenant in the said premises, paying rent through the attorney of the landlady.

2. The eviction petition was instituted on 18.03.1994 by the respondent through her father Kabul Singh, describing him as her general attorney. Admittedly, as per the pleadings set out in the eviction petition, the landlady has been a resident of United Kingdom, her family comprising of her husband and children being well-settled there. The ground on which eviction was sought was that the landlady wanted to settle down in India as she was no more interested in living in the United Kingdom since she desired to stay in Delhi with her entire family.

3. The eviction petition was resisted by the tenant and put to trial, apparently after grant of leave to contest. In the course of the trial, the landlady appeared as her own witness (PW-1) reiterating her case set out in the petition through her father Kabul Singh. She also examined her father Kabul Singh (PW-2). After having concluded her evidence, the landlady seems to have lost interest as when the case had reached the stage of the evidence of the tenant (petitioner herein) there was no appearance on her behalf. Thus, the tenant appeared in her evidence (as RW-1) on 11.05.1999 but her evidence was not contested by any cross-examination.

4. The Rent Controller considered the evidence gathered during the trial by her judgment dated 18.05.1999 and returned a finding that the landlady had proved her bonafide need for eviction.

5. It appears one of the contentions urged during the contest was that the letting purpose was residential-cum-commercial. This contention has paled into insignificance in view of the ruling of the C.R.P. 881/1999 Page 2 of 4 Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) By LRs. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 5 SCC 287.

6. The main ground on which the eviction order is assailed by the tenant, however, is that there was actually no need for the landlady to move to India, she being comfortably settled in England. This contention finds support from the document in the nature of the power of attorney (Ex.PW-2/2) presented on behalf of the landlady herself. It may be observed here that though the eviction petition was filed through her father describing him as her general attorney, no document in the nature of power of attorney executed on or about March, 1994 by the landlady has been shown the light of the day. Though when she appeared as her own witness (PW-1), the landlady did confirm that she had instructed and got the eviction petition instituted by her father thereby ratifying the action taken by him but she would not refer to any document in the nature of power of attorney executed anterior to the one dated 14.08.1996 (Ex.PW-2/2) which is the date of execution of the power of attorney (Ex.PW-2/2) which has been submitted on record. The said document admitted by PW-2 to be the only document of such nature, spills the beans. It declares the intent of the landlady as one to make the necessary arrangements for the sale of the property in question if it was required to be so done any time after her death. The document upfront and unmistakably declares that she was "unwilling to leave the United Kingdom" where she was then residing.

7. Thus, while through the petition filed in March, 1994 it was projected before the Rent Controller that the landlady wished to move to India as she was not inclined to continue residing in United Kingdom and for such purposes required the premises in question, in August, 1996 she declared through the power of attorney executed in favour of PW-2 that since she was unwilling to leave United Kingdom where she was residing, her intent being to put in position the necessary arrangements for sale of the property.

8. The above facts are sufficient to dispel the effect of the evidence led by the landlady before the Rent Controller. She, thus, has failed to prove and substantiate the bonafide of the ground on which she had sought eviction of the petitioner herein.

9. The eviction order is, thus, set aside. The eviction petition of respondent is dismissed. The revision petition stands disposed of in these terms.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JANUARY 08, 2018 nk C.R.P. 881/1999 Page 4 of 4