Mohd. Ishaq And Ors. vs Rais Ahmad And Anr.
1992 Latest Caselaw 438 Del

JUDGMENT

Santosh Duggal, J.

(1) In this revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short 'the Act'), the contentions raised are that the letting purpose has not been proved to be residential, and further that bona fide requirement of respondent No.1 (petition No. I in the eviction petition), has been erroneously assessed and taken into consideration.

(2) I have perused the relevant portions of the impugned order where findings are recorded. There is an admission of the petitioner to the effect that the premises were taken on rent originally for residential purposes. All that he added was that the wife of the original tenant used to stitch clothes on sewing machine. The Rent Controller has rightly held that stitching of clothes by the house-wife, even on the charge basis, does not amount to commercial activity, when the premises are admittedly of residential nature and let out for being used as residence, and where the family of the tenant has been residing. There is thus no merit in this contention.

(3) Similarly, so far as the question of bonafide requirement is concerned, it is specifically pleaded that respondent No. I had no accommodation of his own, and he was being accommodated by respondent No. 2 in one room. When there are co- owners or joint owners of the property, the requirement of one owner/landlord can certainly be taken into consideration; which in this case has been established to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller. In a revision petition filed under Section 25- B(8) of the Act, this Court does not have to appreciate evidence on facts unless there is apparent and gross error on face of the record, and an interference is called for. No such case is made out here.

(4) Mr. Bhardwaj, advanced another argument, at the end, to the effect that as per case of the respondents/landlords, the property in dispute was purchased by means of sale deed dated 27th October, 1991 and that no proceedings could be initiated in view of the provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act before the expiry of five years, after purchase of the property by the landords. It is not disputed that the eviction petition itself was filed on 3rd August, 1978. all that is being contended is that the application for permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act had been filed before the expiry of period of five years, and because that constitutes a step towards seeking eviction, the eviction petition was barred by provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act.

(5) I have considered this argument annd I find this absolutely untenable. The provisions of Section 14(6) of the Act impose restrictions on the landlord's right to seek eviction on the grounds speciflied in Clause (e) to proviso to Section 14(1), and that has to be read in strict terms. The wording of Section 14(6) is very explicit to the effect that 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 there to, unless a period of Five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition, of the property by transfer.

(6) The wording has clear reference only to an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, and would not within its ambit, any steps which a landlord may have statutorily to take under some other provisions of law.

(7) Therefore, do not Find any merits even in this contention. No other point is being urged, the eviction order was passed on 29th May, 1991 but the eviction petition was Filed as far back as in August 1978. The respondents/landlords got an eviction order after 13 years of protracted litigation, and more than one year has elapsed since the passing of the eviction order.

(8) I, therefore, do not Find any case made out for allowing the request for further time being given to the petitioners.

(9) The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.00 .

(10) As a result, the interim order stands vacated.